At question is whether corporate money can be used to promote or attack candidates. The case is another milestone in the world of money and politics...Fundraising has gone up 99% since 2000 when Gov. George W. Bush ran for President and said the public financing was too little to run a campaign on. Since then the public financing system has become increasingly obsolete, culminating in candidate Obama refusing public financing funds for his fall 2008 campaign.
Rick Hasen, who teaches campaign finance and ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, says... that Supreme Court decision coming up that could change everything "The way that the Supreme Court has been interpreting campaign finance law could well lead us into a spiral, where we end up with a deregulated campaign finance system."Decade Brought Change To Campaign Finance : NPR. A completely deregulated campaign finance system will be something we have never seen before. Although there is more and more influence from "soft money" in US politics, there has been at least some effort to control campaign financing. When Congress members represent the interests of a company from whom they receive contributions, like Enron for example, they can and sometimes are prosecuted. But if there is no regulation of campaign financing, then the relationship between corporations and candidates will be even stronger. Imagine a time when a candidate appears on TV to say:
Hello, I'm candidate Jane Smith and I am paid for by General Dynamics, makers of weaponry and weapon systems. As your President I will make sure your tax dollars continue to go to defense contracts and that we have endless war in order to justify these contracts.Of course, such a system might be better than a candidate who says
Hello, I want change. I want to represent the people over the corporations, peace over war, and justice over inequalityand then proceeds to represent the interests of big banks, big business, and big military over and above everything else. At least in the future, we'll be able to choose candidates not by meaningless party logos where both parties represent the same corporate interests, but by the Coke or General Dynamics or Enron logos that appear next to their names.