The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to ban Congress from placing limits on corporate campaign financing riled up a long debated issue.
Supporters claim monetary restrictions limit free speech regardless of content and detractors claim the court majority harms jurisprudence by legislating a political agenda from the bench.
I can’t solve that debate, but I have a question less talked about: does it matter?
Look at the 10-K reports of America’s corporations and you are likely to find a group of higher ups who get salary, options and bonuses of ten, twenty and thirty million dollars a year.
It has always been my understanding that these corporate officers expect, or are expected, to contribute significant portions of these salaries to political campaigns.
It is also my understanding they do so to avoid the corporate limits because the money becomes a personal contribution after it passes from the corporation to the corporate officers as salary and bonus.
Watching the twists and turns of the health care debate makes me sure that money does influence Congress and the members of both parties, but I suspect all effective campaign limits were gone long ago.
What do you think: does the Supreme Court decision matter?
Weigh in with a comment below.
About the author: Fred Siegmund covers America's jobs as part of work doing labor market analysis and projections for a client base of recruiters, trainers and counselors. Visit him at www.americanjobmarket.blogspot.com
