WASHINGTON (RNS) A coalition of religious leaders from a variety of faiths on Wednesday (Feb. 3) blasted the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows large corporations unlimited financial support of candidates during elections.
The group of more than 200 leaders, many affiliated with the National Council of Churches, also pledged to support legislation to limit the ruling’s impact by empowering voters, not special interest groups.
The letter was organized by Common Cause, a public-interest advocacy group whose president is Bob Edgar, a United Methodist minister and former general secretary of the NCC.
“We believe existing campaign finance laws already permit the unfair influence of persons and groups with extraordinary wealth over the political process by providing them with special access to elected officials,” the leaders wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
“This special access ultimately results in legislative outcomes that reflect the needs of those with the financial means to make political contributions, and not the needs of the poor or disenfranchised.”
The faith leaders, including current NCC head Michael Kinnamon, urged Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, a campaign-spending reform law that’s backed by congressional Democrats and a host of left-leaning advocacy groups.
“This measure would empower average people to participate in politics with small donations, and would return the gaze of our elected officials solely to the needs of their districts and the nation as a whole, rather than the interests of those with significant financial resources for campaigns,” the letter stated.
Other signers include Sayyid M. Syeed, national director of the Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances of the Islamic Society of America; Rabbi Michael Lerner, chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives; the Rev. James Forbes, former senior pastor of Riverside Church in New York; and the Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., president and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus.
– Kimberlee Hauss
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted February 3, 2010 at 9:45 pm
And well they, and nearly any person, should. It’s nuts that companies have had the rights of people for freedom of speech; companies are not people and when they speak they rarely represent most of the people working at the company. In fact they often don’t represent the owners of the company either. But they represent very well the people who run the company. Like a bullhorn. And the rest of us are lucky to get heard at all.
Money talks and in the US, especially with the Supreme Court dominated by conservative appointees, money rules.
posted February 4, 2010 at 6:40 am
this is such a great post thanks for shearing a nice info..
posted February 4, 2010 at 10:58 am
This SCotUS decision is quite short-sighted. One of the costs of incorporating is that the individual voice is lost in favor of the larger body (the “corp-” in CORPoration) Therefore the rights of individuals as protected by the Bill of Rights are forfeited as a single entity. Each person within the corporation retains their right to free speech, but then they must own up to who they are. This protection behind the steel veil of incorporation is a significant violation of both the word and intent of the Amendment.
If the SCotUS majority justices think they are arranging to have elections dominated by the wealthy conservatives may be in for surprise. there are wealthy liberals as well and they may use this protection to make their own case. The losers in all this are the rest of us who must endure the posturing and poor, uncreative, strident advertising all over the place. The best advice is to ignore ALL of it and use your mind to make your choice. Obviously the sitting justices are not going to be any help.
posted February 5, 2010 at 9:16 am
As a shareholder in companies via my 401k, I am thankful that my voice is represented along with my fellow shareholders. Just like with a Union, a Political Action Committee, or any other group of individuals pooling their financial resources to get out a message, corporations should ahve every right to air political ads. They are still forbidden from contributing to a candidate and foreign corporations are limited completely.
Why should liberal organizations like the unioons be allowed to air ads and corporations not be allowed to. This is no different.
posted February 5, 2010 at 8:52 pm
liberals are looking for ways to tie hands and dominate even if it means compromising freedoms.
posted February 8, 2010 at 7:17 pm
kd what if you disagree with a company you own stock in? Like I often do. Do they poll the stockholders to see where to throw their money? No. They do whatever the CEO wants to do, which may be diametrically opposed to what’s good for their stockholders or the country. When’s the last time they asked you what you thought about donating to a candidate? I can answer that: never.
ck these are freedoms of companies. They were made up by a court; you’d have to look darn hard to find them in the Constitution. But because they have so very much money they can buy politicians right and left, but mostly right. And now foreign companies will be able to buy American politicians directly. Watch for it.
posted February 8, 2010 at 9:22 pm
nnmns do yourself a favor and wake up, all politicians are bought.
posted February 9, 2010 at 9:16 am
What happened to your “liberals hate freedom” rag?
posted February 11, 2010 at 7:57 pm
lost me on that accusation