Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

A stethoscope, calculator, pills, and cash.

America’s healthcare debate misses the real crisis: soaring care costs. Discover how inattentional blindness hides the $5.6T gorilla reshaping policy, work, and rural communities.

Getty Images, athima tongloom

America’s $5.6 Trillion Healthcare Gorilla: Why We’re Blind to the Real Crisis

In the late 1990s, two Harvard psychologists ran a now-famous experiment. In it, students watched a short video of six people passing basketballs. They were told to count the number of passes made by the three players in white shirts.

Halfway through the film, a person in a gorilla suit walks into the frame, beats its chest, and exits. Amazingly, half of viewers — both then and in later versions of the study — never notice the gorilla. They’re so focused on counting passes that they miss the obvious event happening right in front of them.

Keep ReadingShow less
A stethoscope, calculator, pills, and cash.

America’s healthcare debate misses the real crisis: soaring care costs. Discover how inattentional blindness hides the $5.6T gorilla reshaping policy, work, and rural communities.

Getty Images, athima tongloom

America’s $5.6 Trillion Healthcare Gorilla: Why We’re Blind to the Real Crisis

In the late 1990s, two Harvard psychologists ran a now-famous experiment. In it, students watched a short video of six people passing basketballs. They were told to count the number of passes made by the three players in white shirts.

Halfway through the film, a person in a gorilla suit walks into the frame, beats its chest, and exits. Amazingly, half of viewers — both then and in later versions of the study — never notice the gorilla. They’re so focused on counting passes that they miss the obvious event happening right in front of them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking the Church’s Calling in a Time of Crisis
person's hand
Photo by Billy Pasco on Unsplash

Rethinking the Church’s Calling in a Time of Crisis

There is a significant distinction between charity and justice. Charity responds to visible wounds in the community and rushes to bandage them as necessary. Justice, rooted in biblical conviction and prophetic courage, goes further. It questions the sources of suffering: Why are people bleeding in the first place? This tension between crisis response and deeper transformation is at the core of a courageous step recently taken by Atlanta's New Birth Missionary Baptist Church.

As the nation grapples with democratic strain and institutional fatigue, New Birth's decision to suspend the collection of tithes and offerings during a government shutdown and amid the threatened rollback of social supports is a daring example of moral clarity. It is more than an act of relief; it is a refusal to proceed with business as usual when the most economically vulnerable are again being asked to bear the highest costs. The pause is not merely financial; I believe it is prophetic. An assertion that the church's highest duty is to its people, not its ledger.

Keep ReadingShow less