Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Our Democracy in Jeopardy: Campaign Finance Case

Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court Seal

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last Wednesday in a case that could impact how elections are financed. The case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was first heard at the high court in March, but the court asked for it to be re-argued to focus on the constitutionality of limiting corporations’ independent spending during campaigns for the presidency and Congress. Case facts HERE

Essentially, the plaintiff is asking the court to classify corporations as persons! Not only would this destroy our democracy but you can toss out capitalism with it because it puts the system up for bid.

"Overturning the court's precedents on corporate election expenditures would be a disaster," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, in a news release. "Ours is a government of the people, by the people, for the people – not the corporations and their money. Corporations don't vote, and they shouldn't be permitted to spend limitless amounts of money to influence election outcomes.

The question to be asked should be "Do corporations have 1st Amendment rights to political speech equivalent to those of natural humans?"

What's amazing to me is that while the House and Senate get soundbites on TV arguing death panels, almost no one in America is talking about this case. The sheeple and their elected representatives are clueless as always.

At issue is whether corporate money can be used to directly advocate election or defeat of federal candidates.

Specifically, the nonprofit Citizens United funded, in part with corporate money, a film that attacked then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

While the 90-minute film does not expressly advocate for Clinton’s election or defeat, it discusses her Senate record, her White House record during her husband’s presidency and her presidential bid.

The FEC ruled that its airing violated the federal law’s definition as “electioneering communications” because the group was planning to run ads for the movie as the primary election season was getting under way.

For more, read this piece from Bob Kerrey: As Supreme Court Hears Landmark Campaign Finance Case, Public Funding Solution is Missing