Slashdot Mirror


US Supreme Court Expected Political Ad Transparency

T Murphy writes "The Supreme Court, when ruling that corporate and union political donations were allowed under free speech, assumed the source of the donation would be disclosed immediately under current donation laws. Due to loopholes, this has not been the case, eliminating the hoped-for transparency the Supreme Court ruled to be vital to democracy. Justice Kennedy, who sided with the majority on the ruling, has been called naive for his expectation that there would be greater transparency. In the meantime, campaign spending for House candidates alone is expected to reach $1.5 billion."

1 of 617 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Kennedy's folly and sad legacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You are a moron. Voting is not a "right", it is a function of democracy. It is granted to citizens by the state, not as a virtue of their personal sovereignty. Speech, however, is not a privilege granted by any state or entity.