What the Ban on Campaign Finance Is about
It is imperative to mention that the courts have chosen to stick to the ban imposed on contribution of unlimited funds to political campaigns. It is certain that about 90% of Americans want the role of money in politics to be checked. This is why so many people have been eagerly waiting for this ruling on whether corporates will be allowed to contribute in future. The decision by the Supreme Court will certainly not be welcome for all. They declined to overturn the ban on campaign finance. As you go on reading, you will discover more about why this ruling was taken into account.
You need to understand that nothing really happened in court. The Supreme Court just chose to go by what the previous ruling on the campaign finance laws was without considering its challenges. As such, no corporate will be free to donate their money to campaigns or even candidates. It is through this decision that the role of corporates in the political arena is being tamed. You will find that in previous instances, corporates has the room to donate to campaign kitties from time to time. Such would time and again come about if the money is not directly linked to a given individual. You will learn that this case was brought to court by two companies from Massachusetts. This case was purposed to enhance financial responsibility and even economic opportunities. It will actually be valuable for you to go for the services of a top lawyer in the event that you want to present such a big case.
You need to be made conversant with the legal arguments that this case was premised on. You will find that these companies argued that the first amendment rights of companies was barely being observed. The argument was based on the fact that political donations were components of freedom of speech. They also appealed to the constitution which indicates the need to equally protect each individual. While at it, non-profit and even charity organizations are not allowed to donate to these campaigns. This goes ahead to show that the treatment offered right here tend to be discriminatory. This does conflict what the constitution basically stands for.
It is imperative to mention that what the high court ruled was still favored. This ruling claimed that corporates are not allowed to donate money to political campaigns. This is brought about by the ease of causing corruption in politics. As such, no political candidate will be allowed to receive any political donation from corporations.
Quotes: look at this website