Pro-Life ads capitalize off Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to directly influence elections.

Today in news that is scary, we see the first use of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that blocked the ban on corporate spending in elections. Anti-abortion groups are targeting Democrats in a series of pro-life ads. The ads were created by AUL Action who are part of Americans United for Life and are currently targeting John Boccieri of Ohio, Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania and Baron Hill of Indiana.

via Washington Post.

AUL Action says Boccieri, Carney and Hill are the first of about a dozen members of Congress it intends to target with ads. The one-minute ads are scheduled to begin airing Friday for one week. They criticize Boccieri, Hill and Carney for voting for President Barack Obama’s health care law. In a statement, AUL Action President Charmaine Yoest said the vote amounted to “the largest expansion of federal funding of abortion ever.”

“They will not be able to hide from that vote any longer,” she said.

The Supreme Court ruling was a below the belt hit to a just and fair democracy and this is only the beginning of how the economics of politics is going to change in our disfavor. What is more frightening than pro-life groups are ones that have a steady stream of funding to push their inhumane doctrinaire  politics on their constituents and those beyond.

Join the Conversation

  • Matt

    Two notes:

    1) From the article: “Under the law, private plans in new insurance markets opening for business in 2014 can cover abortion, but payment must come from enrollees themselves, not from federal tax credits that will be offered to make premiums more affordable.”

    In other words, the premise of ad is bunk. Not that it is surprising, but it deserves to be mentioned as well.

    2) The money from corporations to pro-life groups does not reflect their support on the issue. In fact, a corporation probably maximizes its profits by its workers not having more kids, even if it means having to pay for abortions. Rather, the support comes from corporations generally benefiting from getting Republicans elected, and the abortion issue is a means-to-an-end. It is certainly self-serving if a corporation funds ads asking people to support Republicans (or reject Democrats) on tax issues, as those tie in directly with their interests. However, it is a more serious perversion of speech when corporations fund unrelated interests — when corporations fund groups not for their message but because they want the same person elected.