The liberal faction of the main stream media raises a lot of hoopla over the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision commonly known as Citizens United. The complaints center on the fear that money plays too big a role in the election process, particularly big corporate money. George Will has written an excellent piece on the subject for the Washington Post. Here are the highlights, slightly edited.
The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision held, unremarkably, that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in corporate entities or labor unions to speak collectively. What do liberals consider the constitutional basis for saying otherwise?
The ruling’s primary effect has been to give unions and incorporated nonprofit advocacy group’s freedom to spend what they choose on political speech as long as they do not coordinate with candidates or campaigns.
Through March 31, the eight leading super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates received contributions totaling $96,410,614. Of this, $83,220,167 (86.32 percent) came from individuals, only $13,190,447 (13.68 percent) from corporations, and only 0.81 percent from public companies
These facts refute such prophesied nightmares as The Post’s fear that corporate money “may now overwhelm” individuals’ contributions
While much of the media and most liberals urge Americans to be scandalized about “too much money” in politics, the media’s real concern is that there is more political speech by others yet media advocacy remains unrestricted.