The United Vs Federal Election Commission

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.

According to Michael Stinnett who wrote an article about the negative consequences of super PACs on elections he says Super PACs “allowing wealthy donors to buy elections”(Stinnett). His fear is due to Super PACs having very lax campaigning rules and regulations it has the potential to let the wealthy few give all of their money to people who once in office support bills and law that will be beneficial for the donors. Michael Stinnett even went as far as saying “Super PACs are a pernicious influence on society and should be abolished”(Stinnett). Not only does he has this negative feeling about Super PACS, But he shares them with approximately two-thirds of americans who understand the new rules according to a new study done by the pew research center (pew

In recent elections on the congressional level as well as for President we see the growing influences of interest groups in the form of PAC’s and Super PAC’s to back candidates. Super PAC’s can spend an unrestricted amount money to support a certain problems or candidate but cannot donate directly to the campaigns. PAC’s work with campaigns directly reallocating donations to candidates and parties.

While there is a limit to the amount an individual, group, or corporation can give directly to a political candidate, there is no limit to the amount of money one can give to a super PAC. These super PACs work closely with a candidate’s campaign and pay for many of the candidate’s expenses. Super PACs spend a lot of money on expensive television advertisements to endorse their candidate and degrade their candidate’s opponents. While candidates often have to disclose their direct campaign contributions, super PACS do not. Super PACs are able to keep the sources of most of their funds hidden from the public. Some Senators and Representatives have been working on passing legislation to remove the cap on individuals’ direct campaign contributions. This would allow candidates to campaign without super PACs, making the sources of campaign funding more clear (Price

“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.

These interest groups, despite variation in specific motives, would join with state legislators in educating voters about the direct benefits of this proposed bill. This goal of capping personal income could also be recognized by super PAC’s, whose contributions to state campaigns generally have a stronger influence on government than compared to donations at the national level, as their sizable sums lead to direct favors from state officials (Blumenthal, 2015).

The Supreme Court Case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) greatly affected the future of American politics and government and was a major topic of discussion for many years. The case was initially argued on March 24, 2009 and it was reargued on September 9, 2009. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided on a resolution regarding the issues being argued in this case on January 21, 2010 under Roberts court. To begin with, the FEC is a bipartisan, six-member group who enforce and regulate the campaign finance laws, in addition to enforcing obedience with their requirements. It was first created by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which reformed campaign finances. Furthermore, Citizens United v. FEC dealt with the regulation

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was a 5-4 decision divided along liberal and conservative lines. Shane McCutcheon is a businessman from Alabama who donated thousands of dollars to various Republican committees and candidates. If he donated any more, he would violate the limit to aggregate contributions established in the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The aggregate limit capped the amount of money an individual could donate to candidates and committees per two year election cycle at 123,000. McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee sued the Federal Election Commission, which enforced campaign finance regulations, arguing that the aggregate contribution limit violated the First Amendment

Ever since the born of the United States Bill of Rights, controversy and discussion about the right First Amendment guaranteed, the freedom of speech has never stopped. The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, shown a new standpoint of the Supreme Court of the United States in aspects of political equation and freedom of speech, has become a significant landmark in political history. According to the adjudication of this case, shareholders and other groups have the equal right as individuals, and they are allowed to invest in supporting or criticizing political candidates.

Ever since the born of United States Bill of Rights, controversy and discussion about the right First Amendment guaranteed, the freedom of speech, has never stopped. The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, shown a new standpoint of Supreme Court of the United States in aspects of political equality and freedom of speech, has become a significant landmark in political history. According to the adjudication of this case, shareholders and other groups have the equal right as individual, and they are allowed to invest for supporting or criticizing political candidates.

In a court case in 2010, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the ability to spend virtually limitless money on an election was given under first amendment protection. With this ruling, Political Action Committees, or super PACs, have become tremendously influential when it comes to elections. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs cannot directly donate any raised money directly to this political candidate. While these parties can not directly donate this raised money, and must be independent of the candidate they support or oppose, there is a huge debate of the unclear line involved with who can be a part of these super PACs. For example, Obama had his Republican challenger and former aides of his office supporting his super PAC.

Today’s media and communication have enhanced the knowledge of petitions, government affairs, and the environment. Although mass communication and formal protests are powerful and sometimes must suffer the darker side of the situation, they are labeled as interest groups. There are important factors such as money, power, and connections that are questioned and accessed within these groups. PACS or Political Action Committees are involved. Yet, there is another form of PACs that are named “Super PACS” where unlimited funds are raised (We the People). The “Super Pac” strategy should be outlawed by the government so it will not abuse its devoted followers.

Americans can see how this money is either effective or ineffective because there are two candidates left in the race who declared that they did not want a Super PAC funding them; However, both of these candidates have two very different reasons for rejecting Super PACs. These two candidates are Bernie Sanders, who is a democrat, and Donald Trump, who is a republican. Sanders did not want any Super PAC funding because he is tired of big money, he does not want money to influence his decisions in any

“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 entangled in elections. Unfortunately, the United States continues to grant large corporations the ability to donate to campaigns, leading to a corrupt campaign system. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s can donate an unlimited amount of money to endorse 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 their corporate donors and not the American people.

After the Citizen United vs. the FEC Supreme Court ruling, in favor of Citizens United, political campaigns have the ability to raise much greater funds through organizations called super PACs. According to Michael Beckel a political reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, “Officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees”— and unofficially dubbed “super PACs”—these political action committees are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations” (Beckel 655). On top of the ability to raise unlimited funds, the individuals donating are not required to disclose their names. This could lead to some serious corruption. Super PACs can run as much advertisement either for or against a political candidate, seriously swaying the way citizen’s vote and view a candidate. In fact “super PACs are allowed to use 100 percent of the funds they raise to influence elections” (Beckel 656). No one expected this Supreme Court ruling to have an impact so fast. As stated in an article published by The Nation, “The total number of TV ads for House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in 2010 was 2,870,000. This was a 250 percent increase over the number of TV ads