Supreme Court Rules In Favor of the First Amendment

The Supreme Court, well, five of them, thought the First Amendment was a pretty cool thing and that it really should apply to all Americans.

Hard to believe:

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year’s midterm congressional elections.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates’ campaigns.

Here is the opinion.

Opponents of the decision say:

a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year’s midterm congressional elections.

I say, “So what?”

It isn’t the government’s role to prohibit a corporation’s free speech because they might provide information or an opinion based on their point of view.  Honestly, why was this even considered?

It is my responsibility to understand what I am voting for.  Before I cast a vote, I should know who or what I am voting for, and if I base all my information on campaign commercials, then that isn’t the corporations fault.

As long as they are not breaking any other laws, such as defamation, then let them pay for whatever they want.

What do you think?