Mrs. Thrustin

Maybe he's good at "Thrustin'"?

According to the FEC, foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing or spending money in domestic elections. The term "foreign national" includes foreign corporations. I don't know if the decision today changes any of that, as it is very long and I haven't gotten through it yet, but I'll be looking into it.

Mostly citizens, landowners, the environment, regulatory bodies... Many citizens have much more money than many corporations. Is it ethical to let citizens spend as much as they please when their interests compete with those of corporations who up until now could not spend? The principle behind the decision today is that the First Amendment does not permit a distinctions to be made based upon the identity of the speaker. It's all about the "marketplace of ideas": the more speech that is introduced, the better.

Found this... http://www.goodguide.com/contributions#sector=All%20Categories&sort=total&query= I've seen sites like this before. Unfortunately they're a bit misleading. Example: when sorted by largest total contribution, AT&T comes out on top with over $5 million given to republicans and $3 million given to democrats. Remember that corporations are not now, and weren't before, permitted to contribute to campaigns. The number takes into account PACs organized under the corporation AND individuals associated with the corporation. Both PACs and individuals are capped ($5,000 for PACs, $2,400 for individuals). This is not actually a measure of how much a corporation gives to a particular party.

Often, the best interests of a corporation are mutually exclusive to the best interests of numerous other entities. If the political result of their message enables them to act in spite of this fact, is the result ethical? I'm not sure what you mean by 'other entities'. Do you mean it's shareholders? Other corporations? Other businesses? Individuals?

I could be very wrong, but I've never seen any data that showed that corporations were geared more toward republicans. Plenty of major corporations lean democratic as well.

My concern is not so much with the quantity of said advertising as the agenda of those who are underwriting it. Corporations have stakes in the outcome of elections just like average citizens do. They also have a duty to their shareholders to do what is best for the corporation. Shouldn't they be allowed to project their message?

My understanding is that the business can spend money independently of a candidate's political campaign to endorse the candidate, so long as they acknowledge that the video/ad/whatever was sponsored by them. I could be wrong, though. In a nutshell, yes. Corporations can finance advertisements and such on their own relating to a candidate for office. They are still required to comply with disclosure laws that require detailed filings with the FEC and identifications on advertisements.

I'm actually doing my law review article on this decision, so it's been interesting to see what people have to say. Some things to consider: 1. The overwhelming majority of corporations in the US are very small, with only one or a few shareholders. 2. This decision only strikes down the ban on corporate expenditures that are made independently of a candidate. A corporation can not contribute a dime directly to a candidate, nor can it coordinate with a candidate about an expenditure. 3. The only sufficient reason for limiting political speech is the prevention of corruption or the appearance thereof. The Court ruled long ago that independent expenditures did not contain risks of corruption. 4. The NRA and the ACLU were both on the side of Citizens United urging the Court to rule as it did today. I figure it must be a damn good argument for these two groups to agree.