The Presidency

Ban on Candidate Contribution Sticks

You will learn that from the recent cases, courts actually maintained a ban on businesses contributing unlimited funds to campaigns. It is certain that about 90% of Americans want the role of money in politics to be checked. This is what has made so many people to eagerly wait for the ruling so as to know what role the corporates will take in financing politics 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.

It is important for us to start with understanding that nothing new took place in the court. The Supreme Court simply chose to not to consider the challenges to the current campaign finance laws. As such, no corporate will be free to donate their money to campaigns or even candidates. This decision has resulted in curtailing the ballooning role of corporates in the political field. In the previous ruling, you will learn that corporates were often allowed to contribute to the campaigns. This would often be allowed if the money is not tied to a particular 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 more prudent for you to consider a good lawyer in case of 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 that political donations were actually part of freedom of speech. They also appealed to the constitution which indicates the need to equally protect each individual. You will find that non-profit as well as charity organizations are barely given the room to donate to these political campaigns. This goes ahead to show that the treatment offered right here tend to be discriminatory. This is seen to be against the pillars of the constitution.

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 because it could easily lead to corruption in politics. This means that all political candidates will be forbidden from accepting such donations from various corporations.