Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Supreme Court lets stand a ban on corporate contributions to candidates

Supreme Court lets stand a ban on corporate contributions to candidates
Drew Angerer / Getty Photos

The Supreme Court has turned down an opportunity to permit businesses to donate directly to candidates, deviating from a stretch of decisions expanding the "money is free speech" rights of corporate America.

As is routine, the justices made no statement Monday explaining why they decided against hearing the appeal of two family-owned businesses in Massachusetts that challenged the state's prohibition on for-profit companies making campaign donations.


They asked the court to reverse its 2003 decision allowing limits on corporate contributions to candidates, which would have been a significant expansion of the deregulation of campaign financing set in the Citizens United decision nine years ago. That landmark ruling declared that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts on elections so long as money is allocated independently from the candidates.

The two suburban Boston companies, a chain of auto parts stores and a self-storage outfit, were represented by the libertarian Goldwater Institute. They argued the state ban on donations from for-profit corporations to candidates and political committees violated the First Amendment free-speech rights of businesses and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, because the restrictions on businesses' political activity are more stringent than for nonprofit corporations and unions.

All federal candidates are barred from accepting donations directly from corporations, and 22 states also ban corporate contributions to candidates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Read More

More Artists Boycott Trump‑Renamed Kennedy Center

Musicians and dance companies are canceling performances in protest, adding to a widening backlash over political interference at the nation’s premier arts institution.

Getty Images, ntn

More Artists Boycott Trump‑Renamed Kennedy Center

The recent wave of cancellations by artists at the Kennedy Center underscores a broader and urgent question in contemporary society: the struggle between artistic autonomy and political influence. By withdrawing from their scheduled appearances, these artists are responding to the Center's controversial renaming by a new Board of Directors appointed by President Trump. This renaming, seen by many as politically motivated, has catalyzed a strong reaction. Earlier this year, at least 15 performers withdrew in protest. This forms part of a growing trend, with public resignations and statements from notable figures like Issa Rae, Rhiannon Giddens, Renée Fleming, and Ben Folds. They have all expressed concerns that the Center’s civic mission is being undermined.

More performers are visibly withdrawing from the Kennedy Center, with fan-favorite names disappearing from the roster. In recent weeks, news outlets have reported that more artists and groups have called off their upcoming shows. These include jazz drummer Chuck Redd, the jazz group The Cookers, singer-songwriter Kristy Lee, and the dance company Doug Varone and Dancers. Fans holding tickets now face the stark absence that mirrors these artists' discomfort with the renaming and what it represents politically.

Keep ReadingShow less
Our Doomsday Machine

Two sides stand rigidly opposed, divided by a chasm of hardened positions and non-relationship.

AI generated illustration

Our Doomsday Machine

Political polarization is only one symptom of the national disease that afflicts us. From obesity to heart disease to chronic stress, we live with the consequences of the failure to relate to each other authentically, even to perceive and understand what an authentic encounter might be. Can we see the organic causes of the physiological ailments as arising from a single organ system – the organ of relationship?

Without actual evidence of a relationship between the physiological ailments and the failure of personal encounter, this writer (myself in 2012) is lunging, like a fencer with his sword, to puncture a delusion. He wants to interrupt a conversation running in the background like an almost-silent electric motor, asking us to notice the hum, to question it. He wants to open to our inspection the matter of what it is to credit evidence. For believing—especially with the coming of artificial intelligence, which can manufacture apparently flawless pictures of the real, and with the seething of the mob crying havoc online and then out in the streets—even believing in evidence may not ground us in truth.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is Reshaping California - For Better or For Worse
Getty Images, Mario Tama

How Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is Reshaping California - For Better or For Worse

Prop 50 is redrawing California’s political battlefield, sparking new fears of gerrymandering, backroom mapmaking, and voters losing their voice. We cut through the spin to explain what’s really changing, who benefits, and what it could mean for competitive elections, election reform, and independent voters. Plus, Independent CA-40 candidate Nina Linh joins us to spell out how Prop 50’s map shifts are already reshaping her district - and her race.

Keep ReadingShow less