There is an old adage in political campaign financing that has been uttered by many over the years and in a variety of ways, but it goes something like this, "the money will always find its way."
This idea should be kept in mind when hearing the rhetoric from pundits and politicians, which is sure to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Thursday striking down a progression of campaign finance law dating back to the early 1900s.
The court overturned two of its own previous decisions and repealed a 63-year-old law that prohibited companies and unions from using money from their general funds to produce and run their own campaign ads.
The ruling could have an impact on state laws that imposed similar restriction to those overturned by the court Thursday.
The case revolves around a movie made during the 2008 presidential campaign produced by the conservative group Citizens United.
The group wanted to run ads for the movie, but federal courts determined the movie seemed like one long campaign ad against Hillary Clinton.
After a few round of hearings, the court determined it needed to review whether companies and unions should be treated differently than individuals, according to a report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
There is a legitimate question in that fact, is there a difference between a company that wants to spend its money to support a candidate compared to an individual?
President Barack Obama weighed in on the decision of the conservative majority of the court saying the ruling will usher in a "stampede of special interest money in our politics."
This statement alone makes one consider the initial statement we posed: The money will always find its way.
Special interest money is already in our politics, and there is very little debating that fact.
The net effect of this ruling, in part, seems to be that it just will be easier for corporate and special interest money to get a point of influence on the public. For example, campaign ads will now be able to be run right up until the election.
The effect of court's decision will be seen in short order as there are crucial midterm elections coming up.
Direct contributions by companies and unions to a candidate will still be outlawed, but what's the difference between giving to a candidate's campaign or producing an ad that supports an issue that a candidate advocates for? No matter what restrictions the federal or state governments put on campaign financing, those with money, and something to gain, will find a path to use their dollars to influence politics and campaigns.
The money will always find its way.
This idea should be kept in mind when hearing the rhetoric from pundits and politicians, which is sure to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision Thursday striking down a progression of campaign finance law dating back to the early 1900s.
The court overturned two of its own previous decisions and repealed a 63-year-old law that prohibited companies and unions from using money from their general funds to produce and run their own campaign ads.
The ruling could have an impact on state laws that imposed similar restriction to those overturned by the court Thursday.
The case revolves around a movie made during the 2008 presidential campaign produced by the conservative group Citizens United.
The group wanted to run ads for the movie, but federal courts determined the movie seemed like one long campaign ad against Hillary Clinton.
After a few round of hearings, the court determined it needed to review whether companies and unions should be treated differently than individuals, according to a report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
There is a legitimate question in that fact, is there a difference between a company that wants to spend its money to support a candidate compared to an individual?
President Barack Obama weighed in on the decision of the conservative majority of the court saying the ruling will usher in a "stampede of special interest money in our politics."
This statement alone makes one consider the initial statement we posed: The money will always find its way.
Special interest money is already in our politics, and there is very little debating that fact.
The net effect of this ruling, in part, seems to be that it just will be easier for corporate and special interest money to get a point of influence on the public. For example, campaign ads will now be able to be run right up until the election.
The effect of court's decision will be seen in short order as there are crucial midterm elections coming up.
Direct contributions by companies and unions to a candidate will still be outlawed, but what's the difference between giving to a candidate's campaign or producing an ad that supports an issue that a candidate advocates for? No matter what restrictions the federal or state governments put on campaign financing, those with money, and something to gain, will find a path to use their dollars to influence politics and campaigns.
The money will always find its way.
