RNS: Clergy Coalition Blasts Supreme Court Ruling on Election Spending

A coalition of religious leaders from a variety of faiths on Wednesday (Feb. 3) blasted the Supreme Court’s ruling that allows large corporations unlimited financial support of candidates during elections.

The group of more than 200 leaders, many affiliated with the National Council of Churches, also pledged to support legislation to limit the ruling’s impact by empowering voters, not special interest groups.

The letter was organized by Common Cause, a public-interest advocacy group whose president is Bob Edgar, a United Methodist minister and former general secretary of the NCC.

Read the whole thing.

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * Religion News & Commentary, Law & Legal Issues, Other Churches, Politics in General, Religion & Culture

5 comments on “RNS: Clergy Coalition Blasts Supreme Court Ruling on Election Spending

  1. Brian of Maryland says:

    Great – mainline religious leaders who would rather restrict free speech.

  2. Philip Snyder says:

    If we are going to limit free speech by corporations, we need to limit all corporations – the New York Time, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Washington Post, etc. Heck, let’s just have a government take over of the media so that the Government can guarantee that our speech is not tainted (/sarcasm).

    YBIC,
    Phil Snyder

  3. Creedal Episcopalian says:

    If it has Common Cause in a tizzy it can’t be all bad.

  4. Henry Greville says:

    “Free speech” – still a shockingly anti-monarchical and anti-authoritarian concept – means the State has no authority to punish citizens (i.e., with fine, property confiscation, or imprisonment) for expressing views that the State finds objectionable. The Constitution of the U.S.A. does not say, however, that such “free speech” is a cost-free entitlement, nor that the exercise of such “free speech” may not be limited or regulated. All expressions of political opinion come from naturally “interested” voices; therefore Congress should be encouraged to require the revelation of political advertisers’ “interests” – perhaps even going so far as to require the public disclosure of the cost of a political advertising campaign along with its author/creator every time a political ad appears.

  5. Brian of Maryland says:

    Ahh yes Henry, the desire that public debate and discourse must be revealed and regulated because arguments cannot be allowed to stand on their own – something these so-called religious leaders greatly need and want.

    What is it about open debate, for all to see and consider, that is always so troublesome for one aspect of the American electorate? Yes, we are saints and sinners and all decisions and comments will be tainted by our own filters and bias, but you know, I actually have faith in the wisdom of average citizens. It’s what makes a democratic republic work and, in the minds of the founding fathers, is essential to this great experiment called the USA. Let the people hear the arguments, no matter who is making them or paying for them, and then let the people decide.

    I wish religious leaders of dying institutions would find other uses for their time and effort. I wish those who look for ways to intimidate free speech would give it a rest.