|
On September 9th, the Supreme Court will sit in special session to hear arguments on a case that may turn out to be the biggest since Bush vs. Gore. This case is now about whether any and all limits on corporate campaign expenditures supporting or attacking candidates should be declared unconstitutional.
In other words, the Supreme Court is considering wiping out a century of legal precedent that prohibits corporations from using their immense wealth to buy elected officials.
Unlimited corporate influence on our elected officials? This is not what our country needs now.
We'd find ourselves back in the days of the robber barons, when a few wealthy corporate titans virtually owned politicians and virtually owned America. Any lawmaker who went up against their interests didn't survive another election.
If you think Big Oil, Big Pharma and Wall Street already have outsized influence over Washington, imagine a world of no limits on their access to government. If the Court decides this case badly - and there is good reason to think it might - there will be such a influx of money into the election process that a candidate who didn't attract corporate support often would not be able to compete against well-funded corporate candidates.
Public Citizen has dedicated more than 30 years fighting for campaign finance reform so you can imagine why we are up in arms about the possibility that the Court could wipe away more than a 100 years of progress.
We are planning to put up a fight. In the meantime, one obvious solution is voluntary public funding for elections. Take action now to advance the Fair Elections Now Act!
|
