The New Electoral Environment After Citizens United Now

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.

The right of free speech granted to all citizens in the first amendment, the necessity of funding expensive political campaigns, and the fact that small donations make a candidate responsive to the needs of their constituents, all make any restrictions on campaign financing unneeded and onerous. Congress should strike down any bills attempting to reform this essential part of the U.S. election process. Any further restrictions on donations to political campaigns will prove detrimental to the United States functioning system of elections by limiting individuals’ freedom of speech, making our candidate’s campaigns underfunded and unresponsive to the needs of the American people.

Daniel R. Ortiz’s writing, The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform states that those who argue for campaign finance reform, violate the democratic theory in the name of defending it. This article reveals the paradox between campaign finance reform and other types of regulation of political process. Although the paradox is unavoidable, along with discomforting, it should be made evident.

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.

Regulating soft money has been difficult because of constitutional issues that protect First Amendment rights, and Congress’ rights over regulating political parties must be focused on preventing fraud or corruption (Mason, 1997). Soft money is used to mobilize campaigns by using the money to support voter registration drives, and other similar activities designed to jump start a candidates’ campaign (Brennan Center, 2000). For this reason, soft money is important to an election campaign, and recently the amount of soft money raised for campaigns has skyrocketed. It has become a concern because it is largely unregulated and can be used to gain an unfair

In the 2012 Presidential election, the majority of outside spending was a result of the Citizens United decision1. The unique increase of money translated into an increase in television ads, radio ads, and direct mailings. Unfortunately, the large increase in political rhetoric caused a move to political extremes rivaling those at the end of the Civil War2. It explains that micro-targeting of advertising allowed corporations and Super PACS to create echo chambers, where only points of view in agreement with the audience were expressed. Polarization was an issue before the Citizens United ruling, but the unique increase in rhetoric caused the “worst polarization in 120 years.

That is one reason why the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging type of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable organizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impact upon the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinating with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and clear of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party.

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.

The 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, created national discord with a new discourse over money’s role in politics; in the 5-4 verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which considered limits on political spending the equivalent of limits on first amendment rights. Corporate lobbyists viewed the decision to allow unlimited political expenditures as a victory for the Constitution, while grassroots organizations foresaw the wealthiest corporations and individuals transforming American democracy into a corporatocracy. Unfortunately, the critics’ predictions materialized and crowded out any benefits to small donors. Because Citizens United allows unlimited, anonymous spending from corporations and wealthy interests, special interest groups exponentially increased electoral expenditures, holding politicians hostage to their wealthy donors’ interests and hijacking American democracy in the process. The corporate takeover of representative politics specifically manifested in negative advertising because campaigners believed in negativity’s efficacy in influencing the electorate (Gordon). Moreover, the allowance of external spending encourages candidates to perceive spending towards mudslinging as less attached, and thus harmful, to the candidate. The effect of Citizens United’s precedent is demonstrated in the

The United States of America for over a century has been an a model of exemplary constitutional democracy. In order to uphold its reputation the United States has passed laws and created agencies to make sure the government is transparent. The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (FECA), is one of these. It forms the foundation of current federal campaign finance law in the United States. FECA's main goal is to put limits on contributions to federal candidates and political parties, a system for disclosure and voluntary public financing for presidential candidates. However America’s reputation for justice, law, and equality has been tarnished by abuses to campaign finance law that aid in electing the varying political faces that

In American society, campaign finance reform is continuously a topic of discussion. This year’s 2016 election will be the most expensive campaign with presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton is running for office. By this coming November, campaign spending for all candidates spending for all candidates who ran in this year’s election will be an estimated total of 4.4 billion dollars (“Do We Really Need”). For campaign finance to experience reform, we must first acknowledge that the current system is broken. Campaign finance should be restricted and monitored, laws can create more incentive for candidates to disclose political spending. Disclosing Political spending helps voters make informed decisions at the ballot box, and fosters trust in the political process (“Do We Really Need”). States regulate campaign finance in three ways by disclosure and reporting requirements, setting contribution limits to candidate campaign, and by providing a method for public financing of elections. Candidates who run for Federal Office as President of the United States, Vice President, and Senator or House of Representatives have the responsibility to contact the Federal Election Commission to obtain forms and information regarding Federal Campaign requirements and filing deadlines (De Gruyter). States use public financing of elections is by providing means by which candidates can accept public funds to conduct their campaign. If a candidate takes into this program making

An assumption of representation is elected representatives are agents who express district preferences in legislative activities. Voters have preferences, but do not know which candidate in the election best align with these preferences; therefore, campaign communication and advertisements are important avenues that help highlight congruency of preferences between a candidate’s and voter’s positions (Krupnikov, 2011). This new electoral environment after Citizens United now has more independent campaign expenditures going toward election communications on behalf of candidates than in previous elections (Federal Election Commission, 2015). This new environment involves three primary entities for outside independent expenditures, Super PACs, traditional Political Action Committees, and political parties.

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.

America’s forefathers placed great importance on an individual’s freedom of expression. The First Amendment of the Constitution specifically guarantees civil freedoms such as the right of freedom of speech without interference or constraint by government and prohibited Congress from making a law or in any way prohibiting such rights (“First Amendment”). That has not kept those freedoms from being challenged, however. Many court cases have been tied into the First Amendment, with a notable one being Citizens United v. FEC. The Supreme Court in 2010 ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates through advertisements and other marketing tools. (Dunbar) The Supreme Court’s willingness to equate money with speech has been to “effectively gut campaign finance law” in the United States erected to prevent corruption and limit the influence of special interests on American politics (O’Connor et al. 374). Bernie Sanders, a U.S. Senator from Vermont and an independent presidential candidate vying for the Democratic Party’s nomination, called the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling a “disastrous decision,” and wants it overturned.