Judicial Branch current event

Delaney, A. (2010, January 22). Supreme court rolls back campaign finance restrictions. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved January 30, 2010, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rolls-back_n_431227.html

Topic-Judicial Branch- The Judicial Branch includes the Supreme Court and all the lower courts. It is responsible for making sure the Executive and Legislative branches do not abuse their power. The courts make judgments on disputes, and protect the rights of the citizens.

Summary:

Who: The Supreme Court is the major focus, but it also includes comments from Justice John Paul Stevens, Fred Wertheimer, Melanie Sloan, Michael Steele, Brad Smith, Ann Burger, Mark Elias, Sen. Robert Menendez, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Hans von Spakovesky.

What: The article is about the reactions of the Supreme Court ruling that will allow corporations to directly fund federally run campaigns. The ruling was on the court case Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Elections Commission), because they were not allowed to run attack campaigns against Hillary Clinton during the election between her and Barrack Obama. The article gave opinions from two points of view, those who were for the ruling, saying it was a protection of freedom of speech, and those who were against the ruling, saying that special interest groups and corporations were going to have to much power in deciding elections.

Where: The reactions were from those in Congress as well as special interests groups whose locations vary.

When: The reactions were between the ruling on January 21, 2010 and the posted update of January 22, 2010.

Why: The Supreme Court ruling established that any corporation can directly fund a candidate in a federal election having direct influence on that candidates success of winning. This ruling overturned a legislative law that has been on the books for many years. This ruling will directly effect the next presidential campaign.

My reaction: The ruling is masked by the bill of rights giving every citizen freedom of speech. This is not the case in this ruling. If the ruling were for employees of a corporation then it would be true. This opens the door for not only freedom for the people, but also freedom for a corporate namesake. Not only can the CEO’s of a big business donate millions to a candidate, but also they can use funds from their business (in trillions) to aid a candidate in winning an election. Basically what this ruling has done is not only give non-US citizens a voice in a federal election, but also silenced the voices of the every day citizen. The fact that the President, who would have received the benefit from the attack add against Hillary Clinton, is against the ruling, which he said in his State of the Union address, should show that the ruling was not in the best interests of the country and will not promote fair elections.