When I read this decision, I was shocked.  The Supreme Court decided that corporations are allowed to spend unregulated amounts of money in support or opposition to political candidates.  The decision was a 5-4 split with the opposition offering a scathing rebuttal.  The logic was that the laws in place to regulate the amount of money corporations spend on campaigns stifle free speech.  The ruling was made on the basis that corporations are ‘people.’

I strongly encourage you read up on this decision for yourself:

NY Times Original Article, NY Times Editor’s debate,  NY Times ‘The Caucus,’

I have an obvious bias against this ruling, but it is not all bad.  It also allows unions and non-profits to spend without regulation.  However, the fact that corporations are now able to throw an unlimited amount of money at (or against) a candidate is so monumental the rest is dwarfed.

Can you imagine:

-FOX being able to make and air an unlimited amount of political commercials on all their channels, including during shows like American Idol.

-Exxon being able to fully fund a wide release propaganda movie discrediting a candidate they dont like.

-Google buying a half hour long special for or against an candidate on a major network.

-Coca-Cola being able to pay for an unlimited amount of billboards or canvassers for a candidate.

Well these are all now a reality.  The only catch is that the corporations still have to disclose that they are funding their ads.  One Justice, Clarence Thomas, wanted to even get rid of this.  So far there has been a general outcry against this decision, with the exception of some Republican politicians.

These laws have been in place since 1907 with the Tillman Act.  Since then, they have been strengthened by the 1947 Taft-Harvey Act and the McCain-Feingold Act, as well as being upheld multiple times by previous Supreme Court rulings in the 1990s.

This case was brought to the court by the producers of Hillary: The Movie, which was a 90 min long movie defaming Hillary Clinton that was denied distribution because it is a political advertisement.

President Obama issued a statement calling on Congress to “develop a forceful response to this decision.”