Supreme Court gives unlimited political spending to corporations but not unions

A few years back, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling gave corporations permission to spend unlimited amounts of money, “to buy elections.” The corporations don’t need to obtain stockholder’s permission to spend corporate money on political campaigns. But the Supreme Court ruled on June 21 that unions must obtain members’ permission in order to spend union money on the same campaigns.

The Supreme Court’s ruling regarding corporate spending was based on the premise that United States citizens have the right to information from all sources under the 1st Amendment. If it was found right for corporations to be able to spend without limits to make sure their points of view are heard, why is the same right being denied to unions?

Could it possibly be that the Supreme Court favors corporate privilege over laborers rights?

Truthout Authors James Marc Leas and Robert Hager think so:

Supreme Court decisions legalizing private interest financing of election campaigns have enabled a vast increase in private interest control over our federal government. The 1 percent contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in election campaigns to empower themselves and disempower the 99 percent. To keep that money flowing to themselves, elected officials waste enormous sums of taxpayer’s money on government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, wars and tax cuts for the rich. The 1 percent thus receive enormous returns on their political investments. By contrast, the government uses the resulting deficits to justify cuts in needed spending on education, health care, environment, safety and infrastructure that would benefit the 99 percent who do not buy elections and influence.

Sign the petition requesting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to, “introduce legislation requiring corporations to get opt-ins from shareholders to use resources for political purposes. This legislation would be a step towards limiting corporate money in politics.”

Leave a Reply