Corporate Campaign Spending Backed by U.S. High Court

A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades-old restrictions on corporate campaign spending, reversing two of its precedents and freeing companies to conduct advertising campaigns that explicitly try to sway voters. Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Derek Hawkins - Jan 21, 2010 - 8:31 AM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Derek Hawkins - Jan 21, 2010 - 8:32 AM PST
Derek Hawkins
3.7
by Derek Hawkins - Jan. 21, 2010

Covers all the major points of today's ruling on corporate political advertising. Includes important remarks about Roberts and Alito reversing precedents.

Companies, which had been barred since 1947 from spending money in support or opposition to a candidate, potentially now will pump millions of dollars into campaigns. ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Dale Penn
3.6
by Dale Penn - Jan. 21, 2010

This is good basic reporting on an important story of the day that may have ramifications on our political system well beyond what any of us can imagine. A turning point in our democracy? More information on the background that brought the case and the arguments would have improved the story.

See Full Review » (16 answers)
Fred Gatlin
3.3
by Fred Gatlin - Jan. 21, 2010

This is a reasonably good article. What is lacked is how the first amendment reaches this kind of decision. That is the baffling part of this Supreme Court decisions. How can the freedom to speak allow corporations to use money on elections. It shows how far to the right the majority is.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Vincent Caminiti
3.5
by Vincent Caminiti - Jan. 21, 2010

An informative article that is not written particularly well. It interlaces, politicians, political punditry and public opinion. Its title is very poor. It is not the function of the US Supreme Court to back philosophy - they either uphold precedent or deny based on precedent as to the Constitutionality of a Court facing dispute. This article is mired by the inclusion of TV Cable celebrity talking heads and nominal book authors and seems to be tagged with enough meta-data to appear in search engines in order to sell the ads on its pages. While it has elements of journalistic integrity - it also has all the bells and whistles of corporate 'newsiness.'

The Free-speech clause is an abused child of our US Constitution while Mother and Dad fight over custody. It is becoming more and more obvious that there is a generous leaning of the Court to defer to Corporate citizenship over that of human citizens.

See Full Review » (20 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Good
from 4 reviews (72% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
4.0
Fairness
3.8
Information
3.5
Insight
3.0
Sourcing
3.5
Style
3.0
Accuracy
3.5
Balance
3.5
Context
4.0
Depth
3.2
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
3.5
Originality
3.0
Relevance
4.0
Transparency
3.0
Responsibility
3.0
Popularity
3.2
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!