In what is being bashed as a decision that will allow foreign corporations to control elections in the United States, the Supreme Court decided to invalidate elements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Among other things, BCRA prevented Unions and Corporations from supporting or opposing a candidate for public office within 30 days of a primary. I guess that’s bipartisanship, because it didn’t do much.
However, the SCOTUS determined that anytime the government prevents a person (Unions and Corporations are people, just like you and me) from expressing a particular viewpoint, it offends the 1st Amendment.
Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content.
Is this the beginning of a new era of corruption in politics? Hardly. The SCOTUS specifically invited congress to amend the BCRA to prohibit foreign content manipulation of U.S. campaigns.
Because [BCRA] is not limited to corporations or associations created in foreign countries or funded predominantly by foreign shareholders, it would be overbroad even if the Court were to recognize a compelling governmental interest in limiting foreign influence over the Nation’s political process. Pp. 46–47. (Italics added)
So…a BCRA amendment that prevents foreign manipulation of political content would not be overbroad and therefore constitutional? I got the hint, I wonder if congress will. The Obama administration appears to have missed the distinction.