There is actually a need to point out that the courts have opted to maintain the ban on corporations extending donations to political campaigns. You will realize that around 90% of Americans prefer having the role of money in politics to be put under control. It is for this reason that a good number of people have been patiently waiting for this ruling to see if corporates will be given the room to donate in future. The decision by the Supreme Court will certainly not be welcome for all. They declined to overturn the ban on campaign finance. As you go on reading, you will discover more about why this ruling was taken into account.
It is important for us to start with understanding that nothing new took place in the court. The Supreme Court just chose to go by what the previous ruling on the campaign finance laws was without considering its challenges. This means that corporates will not be allowed to donate any money to both campaigns and candidates. It is through this decision that the role of corporates in the political arena is being tamed. In the previous ruling, you will learn that corporates were often allowed to contribute to the campaigns. This would often be allowed if the money is not tied to a particular individual. You will witness that this case was actually brought about by two companies that come from Massachusetts. this case was aimed at improving the sense of financial responsibilities as well as economic opportunities. It is recommended for you to consider a good lawyer whenever presenting such a case.
Seek to ensure that you are familiarized with the legal argument in this case. You will find that these companies argued that the first amendment rights of companies was barely being observed. The argument was based on the fact that political donations were components of freedom of speech. They also appealed to the constitution which indicates the need to equally protect each individual. While at it, non-profit and even charity organizations are not allowed to donate to these campaigns. This in itself shows that corporate entities are receiving preferential treatment. This certainly goes against what the dictates of the constitution are.
It is imperative to mention that what the high court ruled was still favored. This ruling indicated that corporates are not given the room to contribute to political campaigns. This is because it could easily lead to corruption in politics. It is for this reason that no political candidate will be at liberty to receive any donation from corporations.