Democrats have generally been against this ruling considering it was expected to give Republicans a clear advantage due to their larger lineup of wealthy individual and corporate benefactors. However, many Republicans are also now becoming wary of this ruling as many new attack ads sponsored by private groups are directed towards them. Members of Congress have been discussing the possible legislation changes regarding individual contributors, attempting to find a solution that does not infringe upon any First Amendment rights. Many Republicans have suggested to exchange a "greater transparency about ads" for a lift on the spending limit for individual donors; needless to say, Democrats are not thrilled with this proposition.
There are multiple factors and potential consequences needed to be considered that will definitely influence future campaigns. Although some Republicans now share similar views on this issue with most Democrats, the likelihood of any new legislation being passed is still questionable and unclear.
You can find more specifics and opinions from many different Senators and Representatives here.
2 comments:
I spent some time in Nevada (a swing state) over the summer and the sheer amount of political ads I saw on TV was both astounding and incredibly annoying. I can't imagine how bad it must be for voters in swing states now. For their sake, I hope that something will be done to change the current system. I think more transparency would be a good first step to stopping so many of these ridiculous ads, but I think overturning Citizens United would ultimately be better. I understand how Citizens United was upheld, but I think it would be a much better idea to just limit how much money one could spend on these ads. Since all the money and ads put out by each party is really just canceling out what the other party puts out, I think that if both parties had less money to spend they could still have the same impact on voters. In addition to reducing the amount of ads on TV, this would also level the playing fields more for the two parties since each party would have a tough time outspending the other.
I am also irked by the widespread abuses of attack-ads, especially those with no claims at all, but I do not support the belief that the amount spent on any types of advertisement should be limited. I believe that everyone has a right to their freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first amendment, so corporations or other 527 groups have the right to say whatever they want, however despicable what they share may be. We shouldn't try to build an utopia when we, limited by our human nature, are not ready for it yet.
On the other hand, I believe that the Stand by Your Ad provision should be extended to all organizations funding any sort of advertisement that is to some degree politically related. People have a right to say whatever they want, but they can not just hide in the dark; they have to be responsible of what they say.
Post a Comment