IT WAS a sad day for democracy in this country when the Supreme Court ruled in January 2010 that corporations had a right of "political free speech." This terrible decision set loose a tsunami of campaign money that year and is now framing this year's presidential race.

The 5-4 opinion on the court said corporations can spend freely on election costs of advertisements for candidates as long as the money was kept independent of the candidates and that it was publicly disclosed. What has followed, however, was a gusher of new money from individuals – not necessarily from corporations and big unions. Moreover, what followed was not necessarily disclosure and separation from the candidates. Independent political action committees, or PACs,  are raising unlimited sums for their particular campaign agendas.

The results indicate a two-track campaign funding system. One with small donors and strict regulation and a second for the very wealthy – freed from regulation. Before 2010, the PACs were allowed to receive up to $5,000 from individual supporters for a particular candidate. After the Citizens decision, the PACs now have the right to collect unlimited amounts of campaign funds from any source, including individuals and corporations. Also, the not-for-profit PACs are not required to disclose their donors.

The real impact from the Supreme Court in 2010 was to legalize the use of private wealth for buying public office. Will this current system continue? Will money become the only factor determining voting results?

There are indications that changes or corrections are possible. The super-PACs could be required to disclose their real donors – through new law or court interpretations which they could rule against anonymity and require full disclosure.

Another possibility affords the court to reconsider the Citizens United decision, and/or Congress could pass campaign reform laws – or better yet, congressional passage of the Peoples' Rights Amendment (remove corporations/PACs altogether as persons with free political speech). What will it be?

I believe we need a reversal of the Citizens United decision, and we need new campaign finance reform which places fair limits on what companies and individuals can contribute to any individual candidate’s election.

Bruce G. Karolle,
Tamuning