The New Electoral Environment After Citizens United Now

Over the years Campaigning in the U.S. has changed drastically because of technological advances, the internet, social media, and the real-time information sharing across the globe. One study suggest that over the years, examining 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, political advertising has become more negative. The Wesleyan Media Project’s charts states and 2004 election 45 percent of the ads were negative, where in 2012 about 65 percent of the ads were negative.1 There are many speculations on why these negative ads are increasing with every election, but one fact is that campaigns can use negativity to bring attention to a certain topic and sometimes benefit from the free media coverage if the controversy is popular enough.

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.

“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.

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 effects of the SuperPACs is something Americans are hearing more and more about in the 2016 campaign. Do Americans have a good understanding of what SuperPACs are and how they can affect the Presidential election.? This is something that needs to be discussed. As Americans, don’t we have the right to know who is financing the elections? These are only a few of the questions many people should be asking themselves.

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.

As during any election cycle, nearly all types of media are currently flooded with campaign advertisements that viciously attack various candidates’ politics, character, or sometimes both. People are willing to go to extraordinary lengths in order to gain power over others. This is likely due to the fact that everyday citizens are so susceptible to influence from those above them. As demonstrated in World War II, individuals are extremely susceptible to impact from authority figures.

“The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) prohibits corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to make electioneering communications or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate.”

In 2009, Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which led to the controversial Supreme Court case that resulted in the removal of some of the limitations on how corporations can spend money in elections. The Court majority argued that restricting independent political spending is the equivalent of disregarding the right to free speech. However, many Democrats and some Republicans believe that the power and sway of corporations have a corrupting influence on American democracy; even if deals aren’t made, the immense concentration of direct contributions from the wealthiest 1 percent of the population gives them an unusual influence over the political system. It is for this reason that almost every Democrat insists on the reversal of Citizens United. President Obama, in his 2010 State of the Union address, reprimanded the Supreme Court justices for their decision. The court, he stated, "reversed a century of law that..will open the floodgates for special interests...to spend without limit in our elections" (Obama 2010). Democratic lawmakers, activists, and supporters condemned the ruling as a "disaster" and "bad for American democracy" (Kroll 2014). However, are the fears and concerns of Democrats valid and justified? While it is true that there has been an increase in independent political spending following the 2010 decision, it is up for debate whether this is just a systematic increase or one that warrants close scrutiny. I

Eliminating this restriction meant that corporations could now reach the electorate during a crucial time; the days in which most people talked about elections and seriously considered candidates. It is no secret that candidates do fundraisers because money buys television and radio airtime, billboards along the highways and Internet advertisements among other means to reach voters. Also, the lay person is usually not fully informed of all the goals and plans of presidential or nomination candidates. In this fast paced economy lay people are more concerned about daily errands and responsibilities than doing independent research about candidates. Most of people’s knowledge about candidates comes from television and radio broadcasts as well as the Internet. Further, as with any other major event in the United States, many people follow developments in the election trail more closely toward the end of it. Therefore, even if the Supreme Court did not technically allow the wealthy to spend more money on elections, it certainly created an incentive to do so. This incentive is the opportunity to reach the electorate during a time in which they pay more attention to radio, television and Internet election

The Supreme Court of the United States of America overturned previous court rulings in favor of Citizens United. Now companies could interact and portray political leanings in both commercials and documentaries. Previously, according to the case McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, the Court ruled against such things.“Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury finds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an 'electioneering communication' or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.” (Justice Kennedy, No. 08-205) Despite it being an apparent victory for the avocation of free speech leftists around America decried the decisions of the Supreme Court. Articles from major media headlines read “The Many Sins of 'Citizens United'”, “How to Reverse Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”, “10 Ways Citizens United Endangers Democracy”(TheNation, TheAtlantic, Demos) There was an uproar from media about how this bill will ruin all future elections. Making it more about who spends money instead of who deserves to win. However, Republicans rejoiced with the upholding of free speech. Senator Mitch McConnel for Kentucky said this, “For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important

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.

In his discussion of campaign finance regulation, Christiano argues that with cases of gatekeeper mechanism and opinion formation mechanism, campaign expenditures should be regulated to prevent “drowning out” of the opinions of nonaffluents. He proposes that certain regulations will actually help protect and promote freedom of expression, and suggests to limit expenditures and distribute vouchers during campaign periods. Using a prima facie equation, I will argue against the claim that Christiano’s restrictions interfere unduly with freedom of expression and defend his proposal as a valid resolution to the problem of “drowning out.”

Donors of campaign money are one of the largest aspects of an election. In almost all elections the candidates relied on the money that comes in from donors to fund their campaign. In 2012, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney raised about a billion dollars each during the presidential campaign. Obama raised more money from donors giving $200 or less whereas Romney raised more money from donors giving $2000 or more. The individuals who contributed to this were allowed to give up to $2500. Although Obama had more donations coming in from donors giving $200 or less, he still had many large contributions help fund his campaign. Out of Obama’s top five contributors in 2012, three of them were still his top givers in his 2012 election. The top contributors are not the organizations themselves, but a combination of the organizations political action committee, individual members, owners, and

In 2010 the Supreme Court opened the door via the first amendment to permit the greater influence of corporate money on democratic processes than ever before. Since that time there has been a continuous discussion and debate over that ruling. That’s because the five justices in the majority declared and essentially said that first amendment protects corporate managers spending their stock holder’s money for political media purposes is no different than a human being standing up and expressing their political views. The fact that justices in the majority found no difference in those actions resulted in the