Political Power Of The United States

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.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed for corporations and capitalist enterprises to be treated as individuals during an election period. This ruling allows corporations to spend or give an unlimited amount of money in contributions to their party or candidate of choice in any given election. With the loss of corporate financial regulations, our entire political system runs the risk of being corrupted by corporations whose sole objective is to satisfy its share-holders. This ruling affects all Americans their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." President Barack Obama had this to say about the ruling:

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

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a "law that requires all candidates to fully disclose all contributions and expenditures in excess of $100." (pg.161) This law proved very helpful because in 1968, before they really started pushing disclosure, candidates would report spending $8.5 million but four years later candidates were reporting that they had spent about $88.9 million. It was a giant leap in what they were spending, over ten times the said amount. The FECA also made it to where "it was permissible for corporations and labor unions to set up separate, segregated funds that could be used for a political purpose." (pg.161) Having this created a lot of PACs that would give political parties and interest groups money to running

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.

The Federal Court Case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee is a case with a controversial outcome. The Supreme Court came to the decision, through a 5-4 vote, that for-profit corporations have the same rights to finance political campaigns as citizens. The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limiting of independent advertisements by corporations, associations, or unions (CU vs. FEC). The Supreme Court Decision allows corporations and unions to use their financial resources to either promote or persuade against any political candidate on an advertisement. The ruling also allows corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns and does away with any limits on how much a corporate donor can contribute to a campaign (ibid). While the businesses may not give money straight to campaigns, they have the choice to persuade the population of voters as a whole through the use of advertisements, just as Political Action Committees do. The corporate funding of political advertisements is made possible by the First Amendment because it guarantees the right to free speech, and political spending is one form of that protected speech.

The Supreme Court years ago defined monetary campaign contributions as a form of speech and allowed them to be limited because of fears that corporate money corrupts elections. (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) The ruling upheld limits on contributions to individual candidates and on contributions to multiple candidates by persons or groups.

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.

You need money to run a campaign, and each federal election will eventually come down to who contributed the most money. The Service Employees International Union denounced the decision saying, “Today the US Supreme Court lifted the floodgates and started dismantling century-old restrictions on corporate electoral activiy in the name of the 'free speech rights' of corporations—meaning if you a 'corporate person', you are now free to hit the corporate ATM and spend whatever of your shareholders' money it takes to elect the candidates of your choice.” However, money doesn't buy elections. This couldn't have been made anymore evident by the 2016 election. (campaignfreedom.org, opensecrets,org) Clinton raised 687.3 million dollars to fund her campaign, while Trump raised a mere 306.9 million dollars. Not only that, ads for Clinton were triple the amount of ads for Trump. And most importantly, the three biggest super PACS (making a whopping one-fourth of total campaign contributions), all supported losing candidates. This election made it clear that money is less important than the person. People didn't vote for Hillary because of her emails and her corruptness, while people voted for Donald because we wasn't politically correct and desired change.

The overall theme that has shown itself in all the textual artifacts is, Power is in people. In moving west for gold and exploration, growth in the literal Battle of the Sexes, or the building of a nation. Unity has brought power to the weak and made them great. Today, Americans have lost the unity that once built us. We seem to have opened the gates of hell as we let war consume us and let the People we had once been, crumble and blow away in the wind.

Years later, The Tillman Act of 1907 was passed, outlawing the financial backing of businesses to national political campaigns (“CRS Annotated Constitution”). This ban stood for approximately 70 years until the 1978 Supreme Court decision which allowed “corporations to have a First Amendment right to spend money on state ballot initiatives” (Totenberg 2014). Again, that held for a few decades until the 2010 Citizens United case which guaranteed First Amendment full rights to spend as they saw fit because money is the form of speech

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.

of government, so vicious in itself, has become even more so…The Assembly, by means of its committees constantly oversteps…Nearly all the cities…have been founded in defiance of the laws…” Louis XVI did not agree with the opinion that France could be governed by a ‘National Assembly’ because of its importance and sheer size. “He placed his confidence in the wise men of that Assembly who would recognize that it is easier to destroy a form of government than to reconstruct one on totally different principles.” The king could not see any value in what was being discussed by the National Assembly and was convinced they would eventually crumble as a political system. He then goes on to ask the French public whether or not they were happy with

The government in the United States supposedly revolves around American ideals such as equality and diversity; however, this is simply not the case as perpetuated by class inequalities. The meaning of democracy has been skewed in the United States to represent something entirely different than it did in 1776. Today, American democracy behaves more like an aristocracy, where the upper class exercises power within the government and state, influencing discourse and therefore the laws and resources in our country, which are purportedly “for the people”. Democracy is presumed to provide everyone with equal political power, but the government in today’s America, although seemingly following this ideal model, does not. Instead, the elite upper class has a monopoly over the political influence and are the sole benefactors from public policies due to their influence over the policy making process. The upper class has an overall benefit from class inequality, as it greatly impacts American ‘democracy’ through the significant power gained through money and status, leadership roles that impact government, and the influence in the policymaking process that creates upper class advantages.

The era of volatility has created a shift from America being the middle-class society to simply rich or poor (Sachs, 2011). A gap this large has not been experienced since the 1920’s (Sachs). “The top 1% of households takes almost a quarter of all household income” but an economy this top heavy will not be able to succeed (Sachs, 2011, p. 30). The working classes are struggling with housing, wage, and employment issues. Rich individuals are ignoring these troubles, shipping their business operations out of the country, thus furthering the downward spiral of the economy (Sachs). To make matters worse, this has become in a large part a political issue, because the rich can influence candidates with funding, where the poor and working