Politics & Government

Supreme Court's corporate campaign spending ruling draws praise, criticism

FILE - In this Jan. 25, 2006 file photo, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., left, chats with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Supreme Court on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010 threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke, File)
FILE - In this Jan. 25, 2006 file photo, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., left, chats with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Supreme Court on Thursday, Jan. 21, 2010 threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke, File) Associated Press

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday allowing unlimited political campaign spending by corporations and labor unions is expected to affect state and local races and could mean immense amounts of money pouring into this year's race for governor, said key Alaska Republicans and Democrats, who had very different takes on whether the decision is good or bad.

The state Department of Law and the Alaska Public Offices Commission were still reviewing what it meant legally for Alaska.

Under the ruling, corporations and unions can't give directly to or coordinate with candidates. But they will be able to spend unlimited amounts on advertisements for -- or against -- those on the ballot. The justices split 5-4 with the majority ruling that the government should not bar political speech.

"First and foremost, the decision restores some aspects of the First Amendment. That is wonderful," said Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Alaska Republican Party. And it should rid the system of the troublesome 527 groups that raised money outside the regulated system, he said. But corporations still can't give to political parties -- a federal challenge on that is still in court, he said.

Ken Jacobus, an Anchorage lawyer who used to represent the Republican Party, said the ruling was a "huge victory for the First Amendment." He said it would apply "across the board."

"There are going to be a lot more opportunities to make money and bring money to Alaska, to finance the media," Jacobus said. "It all helps the economy."

On the other side, Democrats said that unlimited spending by big business in political races may taint the process, prevent individuals from being heard, and drown out the candidates' own message.

To read the complete article, visit www.adn.com.

Related stories from McClatchy DC

  Comments