Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission

From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700’s you had to be a white male landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has over the election process and politicians. While money has it’s

“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.

Under the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC the supreme court ruled that corporations as an entity were considered people giving them the right to spend money to spread their options and beliefs. This case has been openly questioned in the media, among many members of the country and the government alike. It is still in effect today and the opinion has not changed by the supreme court. With corporations being considered people it brings into question what or who else could be considered person under US law. One example of a group that could benefit from being considered persons are animals. Animals are mistreated everyday and if they had the rights of people then this could be different. Every argument or discussion has two sides, in this case the two sides are that animals should be considered persons and the other is that they should not be considered persons. Both sides have their merits and their faults.

The Supreme Court Case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) greatly affected the future of American politics and government and was a major topic of discussion for many years. The case was initially argued on March 24, 2009 and it was reargued on September 9, 2009. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided on a resolution regarding the issues being argued in this case on January 21, 2010 under Roberts court. To begin with, the FEC is a bipartisan, six-member group who enforce and regulate the campaign finance laws, in addition to enforcing obedience with their requirements. It was first created by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which reformed campaign finances. Furthermore, Citizens United v. FEC dealt with the regulation

FEC) limiting campaign spending on the basis that PACs (generated by corporations) where in fact individuals in their own right. As such, all individuals/citizens of the US have a right to spend their money as they see fit, whether that is making a political speech by funding certain campaigns. Therefore, forbidding corporate spending on elections is a clear limitation on freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some argue that not limiting the amount of money into politics will inevitably lead to corruption. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not built to protect man against himself but against, the government he created. This topic also brings to light the dilemma over what we, (the people and government), consider a citizen. Webster’s dictionary defines determines that the legal definition of a citizen is “1: a native or naturalized individual who owes allegiance to a government (as of a state or nation) and is entitled to the enjoyment of governmental protection and to the exercise of civil rights” and “2: a resident of a town or state who is also a U.S. native or was naturalized in the U.S.” Based on what a corporation is in that definition; a corporation does appear to meet all the requirements: it is considered an entity in itself that can indeed be based in the US, but does it pledge an alliance to our government? Can a corporation

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

No one knows how much of that money came from corporate treasures. The courts five to four decision said that is it OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The courts decision also stated that the first amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

It is unsensible to believe that even the upper crest of the US financially can keep up with a corporation. Therefore receiving donations from corporations is the candidate's main goal, while ignoring the many small donors that truly represent America’s views. While there is no solid proof of corporations influencing candidates decisions thee have been sketchy moment in which corporations money influencing candidates decisions have been suspected. In 2000 when Bush was running for president an energy company based in Houston, Enron donated a substantial amount of money to Bush. They donated 2.5 million making them the highest donating energy company and the 36th highest corporate donator. After Bush was elected he passed 6 bills extremely beneficial for Enron that multiplied their revenue by nearly three times. In all Corporations donating limitless to candidates forces a candidate to pass bills beneficial for their donors and not the majority of people. This needs to stop or the purity of America’s political system goes down the

Furthermore, they must disclose that the candidate of which the advertising is about does not condone the message ("Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission."). The Supreme Court struck down the law, thus essentially allowing unlimited funding of candidates from corporations. The unrestricted access that campaigns have when funding grants legal impairment of those who are unable to donate money as a corporation would, thus making the votes of the people matter less.

When President Barack Obama charged on the Supreme Court in 2010 during the State of the Union, he said that the Supreme Court had allowed corporations to spend vast amounts of money in federal elections. To this claim, Justice Alito replied “simply not true”. In a way Justice Alito was right because the case Citizens United did not change the amount of money that corporations can spend in federal elections. The Supreme Court simply modified the timeframe in which corporations could spend their wealth to support political candidates. In simple words, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend money promoting a candidate all the way through the day of the

In the land of politics, the more money that one has is the better. This is no exception when it comes to campaigns and elections. The goal of any political campaign is to get their nominee the votes they need to win. Whether this is through negative or positive campaign tactics, one thing can fuel a campaigns success is money. Money in a campaign means that more advertising can be bought. This is the perfect way to get the candidate seen by the public and is also a way to paint a negative picture of the other candidate. However, questions can be raised where does the money that funds campaigns or campaign advertisement come from, should there be regulations imposed to monitor where it comes from and what part of the campaign does this money fund? Questions like these and more were answered in the Supreme Court Case Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commissions and many were not happy about this ruling.

In 2012, in an effort to win reelection as President of the United States, Barack Obama raised $1072.6 million dollars. $78.8 million of it was raised by the Priorities USA Action Super PAC. (Ashkenas, Ericson, Parlapiano, and Willis, 2012) PACs or Political Action Committees are groups formed in order to raise and spend money for a political candidate. PACs began in 1944 and had strict guidelines set by the Federal Election Committee in which an individual could only donate $2,500 to a PAC and companies were not allowed to donate money. This changed in 2010 with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case which indirectly led to the formation of Super PACs which allowed for unlimited spending and unlimited donations from individuals or corporations to political

It is difficult to be a politician in the United States today without accepting money from corporate interest. Democrats and Republicans accept money from groups like wall street, lobbyists, giant corporation, and the oil industry. These two parties claim that this money doesn't affect their policies or votes. A group named Wolf Pac was formed by citizens that believe this type of exchange is considered legal bribery. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) On January 21st, 2010 the United States supreme court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC authorized this type of exchange. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) Therefore, both parties can accept unregulated money and support from huge corporations and special interest in the form of Super Pacs. The CEO’s of these corporations that donate to candidates believe their corporations are individuals, and the money they donate is their freedom of speech.

With great money comes great power. In the United States, the richest men and women of the country own the top 20% of wealth. The kind of money the wealthiest people in the country have, they can approve or disapprove any law passed by the government. So, money brings on power over the government. The government mostly pays attention to the monetary backbone of the country; if the backbone is not satisfied then trouble can brew. That is why the poorest people in the United States decide not to be active with politics because they feel as if their vote will make no difference. They will be in the same situation no matter who the president

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