What you Need to Know About the Ruling on Campaign Finance Law
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 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 refused to lift the ban on this political campaign finance law. You will get to understand more about this particular ruling as you keep on reading.
You need to understand that nothing really happened in court. The Supreme Court simply chose to not to consider the challenges to the current campaign finance laws. This means that corporates will not be allowed to donate any money to both campaigns and 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 aimed at improving the sense of financial responsibilities as well as economic opportunities. It is recommended for you to consider a good lawyer whenever presenting such a case.
Seek to ensure that you are familiarized with the legal argument in this case. It is imperative to mention that these companies indicated that the first amendment rights of companies was not being considered. 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. While at it, non-profit and even charity organizations are not allowed to donate to these campaigns. This in itself shows that corporate entities are receiving preferential treatment. 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 was actually against corporates being allowed to contribute to political campaigns. This is due to the fact that they can spiral to corruption in politics. It is for this reason that no political candidate will be at liberty to receive any donation from corporations.