Power Is Corrupt

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 demons of a misinterpreted judicial review have corrupted the legislature, the courts, and our political process. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional. The landmark Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision ruled that political spending is a form of free speech and corporations have license to contribute exorbitant amounts to politicians. Citizens United ensures denies the voices of citizens as representatives are beholden to outside interests rather than their constituency. I, Justice John B. Gibson, hold that the power of judicial review is too widely interpreted and, to keep government officials accountable, must be vested in the masses to rediscover some twinge of our once budding representative democracy.

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:

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).

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 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.

‘Citizens United’ overturns Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sentencing that its related clauses go against to the principle of freedom of speech in the constitution. The ruling follows a bitter boardroom dispute in all sides in America, which has profoundly affected the average American citizens, the country at large and other stakeholders. Firstly, it affects American citizens. On the one hand, in the year of Occupy Wall Street, large amount of the public protested this ruling, for that this ruling may lead to the corruption and make normal people lose their political rights gradually. But on the other hand, they are allowed to collect for the election without limitation, which is supported by many young people especially the supporter of the Democratic Party. Secondly, it affects the country at large. Even in America with classical liberalism and neo-conservatism,

‘Citizens United’ overturns Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sentencing that its related clauses go against to the principle of freedom of speech in constitution. The ruling follows a bitter boardroom dispute in all sides in America, which has profoundly affect the average American citizens, the country at large and other stakeholders. Firstly, it affects American citizens. On the one hand, in the year of Occupy Wall Street, large amount of the public protested this ruling, for that this ruling may leads to the corruption and make normal people lose their political rights gradually. But on the other hand, they are allowed to collect for the election without limitation, which is supported by many young people especially the supporter of Democratic Party. Secondly, it affects the country at large. Even in America with classical liberalism and neo-conservatism, there is still

With the advent of this court decision, the Supreme Court of the United states found that Citizens United fim degrading a political candidate (Hillary Clinton to be exact) through the process of marketing and advertising a film was protected under the umbrella of the First Amendment guarding political speech. Such monetization of the political process calls into question the strength of the current democracy and the ounces of corruption that could soon turn into pounds.

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

Considering the presidential primary season is underway, there is a lot of debate around whether or not Super PACs are considered a form of corruption in government. Many Americans believe that because of Super PACs, the elected candidate will favor the ideals of the large-contributors who helped fund their campaign “indirectly”. This paper seeks to analyze the extent to which Super PACs may corrupt democracy. Using surveys from the Brennan Center for Justice and data from both Yale and Seton Hall Law, we discover theories on how people view Super PACs and their role in American democracy. The conclusion of our research suggests that Super PACs are undemocratic in both the sense that only a very small proportion of Americans actually get to

President Garrett and Professor Frank chastised the ruling for its pernicious consequences on American democracy. Professor Frank derisively highlighted the ruling’s establishment of corporate personhood, and President Garrett pondered how the five-justice majority (Roberts; Scalia; Kennedy, opinion author; Thomas; Alito) could possibly have concluded that unrestricted political donations would not inherently precipitate bribery, for which there exists, in the President’s words, a “compelling State interest” to prevent. Ultimately, the general panel consensus was twofold: Citizens United was wrongly decided, and the case should be overturned.

In 2011, two sociologists named Erik Olin Wright and Joel Rogers identified five core American values: freedom, prosperity, efficiency, fairness, and democracy (Wright and Rogers). America’s numerous ideals inevitably cause these values to come into conflict each other. Such conflict characterizes the debate over the implications of modern campaign finance laws in America. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United v. FEC in 2010 undid former restrictions placed on how money can be spent on federal political campaigns. Prior restrictions like the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its amendments in 1974, placed limitations on political donations by Political Action Committees (PACs), political parties, and even individuals. Originally these restrictions were put in place to deter corruption that could undermine the democracy inherent in US values and elections. The Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 revolutionized the scene by declaring that independent expenditures are protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. They further asserted that for all intents and purposes corporations are legally viewed synonymous with people in terms of political spending. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized equality and freedom, but at what cost? Critics, like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, suggest at the cost of democracy, and ultimately corporate interests diminishing freedom in the long run. As a result of this case, more money is now

Since March of 2015, a group named End Citizens United marked the dawn of a new era. With so much corruption taking place in Washington, the group felt empowered to take a stand. Morevoer, the group sought to mobilize the American people with their initiative. According to most people, the outpour of support has remained praiseworthy. Not only did the organization mobilize the American people, they empowered the Democratic Party's base. The reason being all of this uproar stems from certain proceedings mandated by The Supreme Court. In particular, this included The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision regarding Citizens United v. F.E.C.

In 2010, a very controversial law was passed that has changed the way our elections are ran. Our Supreme Court led by Justice Roberts immediately jumped on passing this law called Citizens United. Citizens United allows big corporations to spend as much money as they want in elections. This means that the corporations can put all of their money towards one candidate or they can put forth all of their money towards advertising for elections. This is good because these corporations can encourage people to become interested enough in elections to actively participate. With more people actively participating there are more votes for each individuals most favorable candidate creating the best outcome for the President of the United States or for a new member in the House or Senate. Since Citizens Untied gives so much power to corporations, these corporations heavily influence who to vote for through their advertising and money. From all of this unconditional amount of advertising and money influences in our elections, corporations have the ability to make their vote overpower the people’s votes.