POLL: Should There Be Campaign Donation Limitations for Businesses?

The Supreme Court ruled two years ago today that there should be no limitations put on businesses/corporations when it comes to their campaign donations.

Even the Supreme Court is isn't all that decisive when it comes to the issue of campaign finance and business in America. 

While the 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission on Jan. 21, 2010 established an unprecedented freedom for businesses, corporations and unions to financially support their candidate of choice, it was an extremely contentious issue at the time and it remains one today, with members of government and special interest groups constantly trying to revise or legislate a new rule of law. 

According to Wikipedia, the ruling "was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. The 5–4 decision originated in a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act in reference to its primary Senate sponsors."

There are currently several groups (some of them nonprofits established by corporations themselves) and politicians trying to change the current law, including who represent much of MetroWest. 

What do you think about the issue? Do businesses, corporations and unions deserve the rights afforded to individuals, or not? Or, is the issue too complicated to give a simple yes or no? Give you thoughts in the comment field. 

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to keep up to date on the latest Marlborough news, or simply hit the "like" button at the top of this page.

David LaBossiere January 21, 2012 at 12:53 PM
If corporations would take that money and reinvest it they would create many more jobs. So yes there should be a cap on how much they can donate.
Tom C January 21, 2012 at 01:59 PM
They should be able to donate NOTHING!!! For the People, By the People!!!!! ONLY!!! This country is so corupted by corporate america. All the politicians are bought and paid for.
Andy Koenigsberg January 22, 2012 at 01:50 PM
Corporations are not people, they are profit making entities. Nothing wrong with that but they should not enjoy the same rights under our constitution as people do.
Lee Wright January 22, 2012 at 06:09 PM
There's no reason to believe that limitations on any type of activity, whether it's volunteering time or money, do anything more than communicate a message. And no reason to believe that voters, with the record number of tools and media outlets, aren't capable of sorting all of this out. In fact, we've seen time and again, that there is no necessary relationship between money spent and votes received. We have, however, seen existing limits, if anything, make it advantageous for the wealthy (Bloomberg, Romney, and many others) to mount campaigns. Our democracy remains most responsive when it's possible for more people to run for elected office. Limits, on money or activities or all kinds--from companies, unions, and other organizations and individuals--only benefit one group: Incumbents.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »