Subscribe to the RSS feed.Citizens United v. FEC: Is it a public health issue?
Is it a simple defense of free speech as protected by the first amendment, or an egregious example of right-wing judicial activism?
While that may be one way of framing the recent Supreme Court ruling “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” the question posed here is simply:
“Is it a public health issue?”
In other words, what might be the public health impact of this ruling?
Citizen’s United lead counsel Ted Olson said the decision “overturns some of the most egregiously restrictive aspects of campaign finance law. This is a historic opportunity to strike a blow for the First Amendment.”
However, critics of the decision, (which include President Obama) have a different take.
Writing in the Huffington Post, Joseph Palermo suggests the ruling will make it even easier for corporations to violate humane conduct, such as “when Cargill uses meat processing subcontractors that spread E. coli across the country, or Nestlé’s rips off Sacramento’s municipal water supply in a time of drought, or ExxonMobil and the energy monopolies flaunt environmental laws and gouge consumers; or the financial services companies bring down the American economy and trade derivatives based on life insurance policies betting that Americans are going to die sooner than later.”
Will plastics, pesticide and other manufacturers be able to bring more toxic products to market than they otherwise might have prior to this ruling?
Will pharmaceutical companies have greater power to create more perceived needs to fill their medical-industrial pipeline of products?
Will it become increasingly difficult to regulate, and even tax, harmful products such as tobacco, soda, and junk food?
Will the current state of health disparities in this nation be affected?
Is this ruling a public health issue?
