Big Sky Big Money Analysis

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

“The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals…Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.”

In recent elections on the congressional level as well as for President we see the growing influences of interest groups in the form of PAC’s and Super PAC’s to back candidates. Super PAC’s can spend an unrestricted amount money to support a certain problems or candidate but cannot donate directly to the campaigns. PAC’s work with campaigns directly reallocating donations to candidates and parties.

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 distinguished the Bethel School District v. Fraser ruling. The case dealt with the regulations of campaign advertising produced by an organization. In the early months of 2008, The Citizens Untied Corporation released a documentary about why Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The corporation’s plan was to make the documentary accessible 30 days before the primary election. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act however prohibits corporations from producing advertisements that advocates for or against a candidate 60 days prior to an election or 30 days prior to a primary election. The question at hand in this case was whether the BCRA violated the organization’s First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the BCRA’s restrictions. The high court decided that the law limited what people could say and when they would say it in regards to the election. It also ruled that the Federal Law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution. The court however, upheld certain requirements for public disclosure by means of advertisements. The court distinguished the Bethel School District v. Fraser ruling when they “upheld a narrow class of speech that operates to the disadvantage of certain persons” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S.

The issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush’s response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that money is

While there is a limit to the amount an individual, group, or corporation can give directly to a political candidate, there is no limit to the amount of money one can give to a super PAC. These super PACs work closely with a candidate’s campaign and pay for many of the candidate’s expenses. Super PACs spend a lot of money on expensive television advertisements to endorse their candidate and degrade their candidate’s opponents. While candidates often have to disclose their direct campaign contributions, super PACS do not. Super PACs are able to keep the sources of most of their funds hidden from the public. Some Senators and Representatives have been working on passing legislation to remove the cap on individuals’ direct campaign contributions. This would allow candidates to campaign without super PACs, making the sources of campaign funding more clear (Price

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committee's

Diving in the Citizen’s United Ruling case state that corporations and other independent groups have the right to raise unlimited campaign funds. This campaign fund, representing the corporation's freedom of speech, can be used for and against federal candidates. The ruling of Citizen United permitted groups to make “independent expenditures,” not affiliated with any candidate or party since they were not allowed to spend treasury funds in Federal elections (Citizens United). Corporations and unions can have a certain limited contribution to their political action committees, organizations that raise and spend money for specific candidates, that then contribute to the outcome of federal campaigns. Organizations, social welfare, and trade associations

“Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor” (2). The majority supported their decision by stating that corporation donations to a candidate election is a method of free speech, which means it must be protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, those disagreeing with this stance viewed corporations as businesses, rather than people, and believed that having no regulations and limits on contributions would cause the voices of individuals with average means to be drowned out by the money donated by major corporations. The protection given to corporations by the First Amendment basically meant that corporations were seen as people, rather than as businesses. Additionally, the majority also ruled that the disclosure requirements set by the McCain-Feingold Act were constitutional for the movie because there is “governmental interest in providing the electorate with information about election-related spending resources” (3). Despite all the changes made regarding financial contributions towards candidates, the ban on direct financial donations and aids to candidates from corporations was upheld by the Court.

The Supreme Court also sited in that same ruling that, “In a free society by our Constitution, it is not the government, but the people-individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees-who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign” (Keena 6). While it may be a violation of freedom of speech to limit television ads, many of today’s candidates have made a mockery of the existing legislature regarding campaign financing. Ex-president Bill Clinton bent the rules and laws more than possibly any elected official ever, and certainly farther than anyone since Richard Nixon. Thad Cochran, a veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, stated, “Clinton used his own party and had it operated out of the campaign office, which was the White House, to coordinate expenditures by the Democratic Party and his election campaign in an unlimited amount, using soft money to pay for the ads, with his own chief-of-staff making the decisions about the kind of advertising, and Clinton himself was involved in writing some of the ads that were actually run by the Democratic Party using soft money” (Williams 10). No elected official had ever gone so far as to run soft money ads out of his own office, let alone rewrite the ads himself. It is cases such as this one that are prime examples for why there is such a need for new laws to govern campaign financing.

In a court case in 2010, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the ability to spend virtually limitless money on an election was given under first amendment protection. With this ruling, Political Action Committees, or super PACs, have become tremendously influential when it comes to elections. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs cannot directly donate any raised money directly to this political candidate. While these parties can not directly donate this raised money, and must be independent of the candidate they support or oppose, there is a huge debate of the unclear line involved with who can be a part of these super PACs. For example, Obama had his Republican challenger and former aides of his office supporting his super PAC.

To combat too much political influence from advertising, the federal government passed a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) or as it’s more commonly known, the McCain-Feingold Act. The BCRA sought to expand disclosure on soft money and changed some limits on hard money. The key piece of this legislation is the electioneering communications statute, or section 203. This piece of BCRA was intended to limit the influence of PACs by restricting their ability to air advertisements right before elections. McCain-Feingold prevented corporations and PACs from showing political commercials sixty days before an election and thirty days before a primary (FEC BCRA 90).

After the Citizen United vs. the FEC Supreme Court ruling, in favor of Citizens United, political campaigns have the ability to raise much greater funds through organizations called super PACs. According to Michael Beckel a political reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, “Officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees”— and unofficially dubbed “super PACs”—these political action committees are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations” (Beckel 655). On top of the ability to raise unlimited funds, the individuals donating are not required to disclose their names. This could lead to some serious corruption. Super PACs can run as much advertisement either for or against a political candidate, seriously swaying the way citizen’s vote and view a candidate. In fact “super PACs are allowed to use 100 percent of the funds they raise to influence elections” (Beckel 656). No one expected this Supreme Court ruling to have an impact so fast. As stated in an article published by The Nation, “The total number of TV ads for House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in 2010 was 2,870,000. This was a 250 percent increase over the number of TV ads