Essay On Citizens United Vs Fec

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 First Amendment has been one of the most controversial issues surrounding the Constitutions since its ratification in 1787. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Many people disagree on the extent of power the First Amendment actually has on the right to free speech. One of the most controversial issues surrounding the First Amendment is how much influence a company can have over elections and

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

What is Citizens United? While it is also a type of political action committee, it became part of a Supreme Court case in 2010, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United is a political action committee, a type of organization that donates contributions to campaign for or against candidates in the United States. Citizens United is a problem in United States politics because it allows giant corporations and millionaires to donate large sums of money to get their candidate elected. The Supreme Court made a decision about political spending that has ever since affected the business of politics in the United States (Levy).

“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.

One of the issues I am most passionate about is that of money in American politics. Increasing campaign costs, coupled with a decrease in the number of donors contributing to those campaigns, is a disturbing trend which has caused many to feel the need to question the state of our democracy—myself included. The problem of mainstream political corruption and legalized bribery is one that I was made aware of three years ago, and has since become one of the things keeping me up at night most often.

During local, state, or federal election there is a limited amount of time and information that a voter has to help him/her decide for which candidate he or she wants to vote. Before the ruling in Citizens United v FEC, private donations from voters were needed to provide candidates with financial means to create commercials, billboards, etc. In turn, this gave the voters a voice in who is to lead their government. Corporations were limited in the amount they could provide to their candidate of choice. After the ruling, corporations can now match every private donation and contribute an unlimited amount on top of that in order to support their candidate. This creates a problem because a corporation can potentially suffocate voters with campaign ads without the other candidates' ads being heard. Therefore creating an uneven debate and platform for Democracy to work.

I agree that, deep down, there is something wrong with the way in which campaigns in the United States are financed. There is little doubt that large corporations and/or special interest groups have a “quid pro quo” expectation attached to the outlay of large sums of money (an expectation of a direct exchange of campaign contributions for favorable government treatment).

Between the 1870'S to the 1900’S the rise of big corporations whom had a lot of control over politics and the economy, increased. In determining the full impact of corporations in America, a person must asset to the extent some went to achieve richness and have such a big influence in the government as well as the economy. Politically the corporations had control over what was said in the government, economically the corporations took advantage of the poor factory workers, and farmers , by lowering wages and raising prices to export crops. Corporations began to ignite political, and economic issues in post industrial america.

He argued that the precedent of the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo court case, which upheld aggregate limits, did not apply in this situation because the court at the time did not consider McCutcheon’s legal argument and the situation in which aggregate limits functioned back then is 1976. Then, he established that because an aggregate limit restricted how many candidates and committees an individual to support, it limited free speech and thus was only justified if it was necessary to prevent political corruption. He confined political corruption to bribery, arguing that if corruption was understood as money resulting in more influence to or ingratiation from an officeholder, then the government would have a say in who could govern, citing the precedent of Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennet. He also added that ingratiation and influence create more responsive candidates and are therefore good for democracy. Roberts argued that aggregate limits were not necessary to preventing bribery because any scenario where circumvention could happen would be either illegal under earmarking rules or unlikely because many state parites would have to participate in the scheme. There were also alternatives to preventing circumvention, including restrictions on transfers among party committees and candidates, the tightening of earmarking rules, and the implementation of broad disclosure

These laws were the perfect way for the state to make sure that the system is stable in the future. Just recently on April 2nd, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down the overall cap on monetary political donations. This is a classic case of the state adopting policies to ensure the stability of the system. Coping the scheme of citizens united the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allows an individual to donate as much money as they please to federal candidates in a two year election cycle. Although federal law bans direct contributions to campaigners by corporations and business, super pacs allow money to get to the politicians without direct contact. But this law still allows wealthy individuals to support the candidates that will represent their needs and wants in the national government. This creates an unfair system aimed at helping the elites because they will have more money to donate therefore will have more of the campaigners attention. Justice Breyer realized the importance of this decision being turned down and was recorded writing “Where enough money calls the tune,” he wrote, “the general public will not be heard.” (New York Times).

Corporations make America the money-hungry place that is critiqued worldwide. Without the major corporations we see today, like Walmart, Target, and Mcdonald’s, 27 million people would be unemployed and they are very well aware of that (Zillman, Claire). If these giants embody what is wrong in America, why should they have the right to contribute to the candidate they want to help elect? The CEOs of these companies have personal interests they want to protect. These individuals have earned money on the backs of the 27 million people, we should be protecting Main Street, not Wall Street. The Federal Election Commission should reserve the right to limit and close the checkbooks of the people that believe they can buy anything they wish.

Today’s society does not share that same sentiment. The amount of money that is required to run for political office almost ensures that campaigns will need to be financially supported by businesses, claims Chomsky. He says that this dates all the way back to 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted. This is a significant piece of history because it included a condition stating, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (“Primary Documents in American History”). Chomsky claims that this section was almost immediately twisted by corporations, to protect their interests.

Corporations rely upon the interest groups to sway the laws of the land in their favor. This can only be done by shaking hands and greasing palms of those on capitol hill. This means that it is very important that their interest and their wealth be protected. It is equally important for political figures to maintain political power and stay in office. Conversely, the wealthy will do all that they can to acquire and maintain their wealth. To that end, the wealthy tend to be intimately involved in the political process. Therefore, the wealthy often will donate to candidates or parties that support the same their interest. Views of the less fortunate and low income often conflict with the upper class. Likewise, the two groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to political views. This causes a wide disparity in political views. An example of this are the markedly different opinions on the black lives matter movement. Supporters of the black lives matter movement typically are lower income and because of this their views are often underrepresented and lack the political strategy due to lack of funding. Therefore, a potential candidate who is a strong supporter of the movement would have a lesser chance than a candidate who strongly focuses on agendas that support big business. Ultimately, candidates who support the views of the upper class have a larger advantage because they receive more

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.