The US Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional limits on corporate political communication in the run-up to elections.
My first reaction is that this bodes poorly for the possibility of electing broadly representative officials. Practically, it is bad for corporations to egregiously intervene in the public political debate when their input far exceeds any other potential voice.
But theoretically, it sounds troubling to limit publication and dissemination of speech.
What are your thoughts on this ruling? How could the practical concerns and the theoretical ideal be reconciled?
Jan 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 sucka ass fools had something to say:
Maybe I'm wrong. My knowledge of foreign politics is admittedly pretty limited, but the practical vs theoretical conflict is one that seems to come up in America a lot more than most other places. I'm thinking specifically of Canada, a fairly similar country to ours with a lot of the same issues and values, but a much less idealistic and more pragmatic approach to government.
We Americans tend to view so many political issues and policies through a lense of theoreticals, slippery slopes, out-dated or dystopic hypotheticals. Maybe this broader deeper consideration is wise, but it often seems ridiculous.
Corporations exert to much influence for the public good, so it could (and IMO should) be curtailed without a dramatic collapse of business influence in government. If it goes too far and corporations are unfairly silenced somehow, we can always change government policies again...
Post a Comment