Верховный Суд США прикрываясь первой поправкой снял запрет на финансирование корпорациями избирательных компаний через СМИ.
Обама выступил по поводу.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... ng-citizenAs the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all across the country. But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.
The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street Bank. A group can hide behind a phony name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Corporations for Weaker Oversight.”
We tried to fix this last month. There was a proposal supported by Democrats and Republicans that would’ve required corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities. When special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it – like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor. And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections – just as they were in the past.
You would think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense. You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections wouldn’t be a partisan issue.
But the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote.
This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark. They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.
Согласны ли Вы ним?
Если да, то следует ли признать, что Верховный Суд США политически ангажирован?
Как видите, Суд по крайней мере не ангажирован в пользу исполнительной власти: он идет вполне себе наперекор Обаме в очень важном для того вопросе. Далеко не во всех странах, называющими себя конституционными демократиями такое происходит.