On the 25th of June 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the rights of businesses and unions to fund advocacy laws nearing an election. Ruling in favor of an anti-abortion group who wished to air ads about candidates within 30 days of the 2004 elections, the Supreme Court sustained a win for the grass roots lobby groups and for the Constitution. Basically, this ruling repealed the effects of the McCain-Feingold bill which forbid interest groups "from spending their treasury money on ads that mention federal candidates 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election." This is a strong example of judicial review. Even when the Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, the justices agreed that if the ads had been paid for out of the groups' political action commitee, then the ads had a right to be run. Thus, the judicial branch checked the power of the legislative branch and worked independently of the executive branch.
I agree with this article to some extent. While the concept of judicial review may have been correctly practiced and the First Amendment was upheld, I believe that the consequences will be too severe. Interest groups such as the anti-abortion group may air ads not to aid their own candidates, but to subtlely slander their candidate's opponent. This would be a direct violation of the law (as one is allowed to sue another for slander and libel) and would actually hinder political processes; it greatly influences a person's vote. Airing so close to the election, these ads may cloud a voter's judgement with slanderous information and swing their vote to the opposition. Like Madison said in his Federalist Papers #51, some violations of the constitution is necessary. In this case, I believe that this violation is necessary and proper for the well being of the general public.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that all political campaigns these days are unfair and unjust. The political campaigns that air on TV and radio all attack the opposite party. These ads create lies and manipulate information regarding the other side for one sole purpose: to gain votes and to hinder their opposition. I believe that the issue should not be whether ads have a right to run during a certain period of time but that better government involvement should be instigated to ensure honesty and integrity in the election process.
BTW Arie, in the beginning of the 3rd line, you wrote "2004 elections." Is it supposed to be 2007? (= Just a thought
I think that the ads should be allowed to run, but under certain circumstances. If the information is true, I see no reason for censoring. These ads should have a reasonable arguement with their commercial and if it doesn't, it shouldn't be shown. For example if an ad has false information, or makes fun of an opponent, of course it should be restricted.
The ads should be continued to run, but the FDA or some company should monitor and research the claims from each one.
Good article, i was writing about this but you took it..:(
I think the article was talking about the 2004 presidential elections, although it didn't mention which elections. It was implied...So no...=)
Post a Comment