Term 3: Post 1
The Supreme Court this month made a landmark decision regarding campaign finance right as we are discussing campaigns and right as we are transitioning to the topic of courts. How nice of them, right? Please read up on the Court's new ruling. I have included some articles below because it is no longer on the front page. In your post please address the following questions:
-What will the short and long term impacts be of this decision? What will candidates, parties, interest groups, and Congress do in response to this ruling? Will it improve or hurt the way American elections occur?
-Do you a agree or disagree with the Court's ruling and why? If you disagree, what do you think the Court should have ruled and why? (Keep in mind the Court's precedents and the First Amendment).
Post due on Tuesday, February 2nd by 7pm.
Welcome back and lets have a great term together! M. Aby
The Supreme Court removes important limits on campaign finance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending on political campaigns
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
High court shows it might be willing to act boldly
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
Citizens United used 'Hillary: The Movie' to take on McCain-Feingold
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012103582_pf.html
Campaign Finance Ruling: Hard To Reverse
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
Honest Ads May Be Byproduct Of Landmark Ruling
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
A Century Of U.S. Campaign Finance Law
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121293380
Labels: campaign finance, Supreme Court
posted by M. Aby @ 6:57 AM
43 Comments:
The January 21st Supreme Court decision abolishing limits of campaign donations by corporations is a very interesting & controversial one to say the least. Since 1947 (1) corporations have operated under severe restriction in campaign donation, and this decision will greatly allow corporations to be heard. Initially, the political world was shocked with this decision because the McCain-Feingold Act had been declared constitutional only six years earlier. In general, the political world is not happy with this decision, including president Obama & the Democrats, who see this as a way for corporations to inevitably corrupt democracy (1). The decision however is seemingly a plus for Republicans who are more likely to benefit from free enterprise & businesses (2).
There is not much that can be done on the side of opposition with this ruling. Since the court was able to directly link the unconstitutionality to the first amendment by saying that corporations are akin to individuals in their right to freedom of speech (2), it is nearly impossible that opposer’s will be able to overturn the ruling. It is possible however, like numerous Democrats have vowed to do, to push for more restrictions (1). Interest groups mostly likely are happy about this decision because it abandons the limits set on the amount that PACs are able to give to campaigns, which is great for them, but bad for elections.
Much controversy has arisen over this issue because of the belief that this decision will result in corporation corruption on democracy, and a truly elitist form of government will evolve. Corporations may ultimately be “choosing” our government officials. Endless amounts of money will be put forth to campaigns that corporations are in favor of, and this continuing financial support will make it easy for the corporations to influence the outcome of the election. With that, elections will also become even more negative than before while the production of attack ads may be endless. For this reason and other, I disagree with the Courts ruling on this issue.
While I am all for the protections guaranteed under the first amendment, I do believe that the ruling was wrong because the amendment does not dictate that corporations must be treated like people (3). The amendments are specific to individual liberties, and a corporation is most definitely not an individual. I also think that the decision is ideologically wrong, because like mentioned earlier the result will be an elitist takeover. I believe that it is in the interest of the Supreme Court to protect democracy, and with this decision, it is not fulfilling its duties of ensuring the longevity of our nation as we know it.
That being said, I think that the court should have been putting more restrictions on corporate campaign donations. They have set precedents under the McCain-Feingold Act that they overturned with this ruling. One major influence of this decision is replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor which tipped the balance the Court had when the McCain-Feingold decision was reached (4). In this case, however, I think that the Court should have respected their precedents and kept making restrictions, or at least they should have held true to what they said and solely maintained the status quo.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
(2) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
I believe the short term effects will be an increase in corporate or union spending for ads. But I don't think there would be a huge increase. As Bradley Smith of the Centre for Competitive Politics points out "Half the states already allow corporations to buy political ads and their elections work just fine' [2]. I believe candidates will be against it. They won't want other outlets defining their message or having the opportunity to influence votes. Parties will react along their lines. The Republican generally view it as a "reaffirmation" of the First Amendment. Democrats are generally against it saying it will swamp the system. [1]. "...the recent federal court decisions demonstrate that the government cannot regulate individuals, corporations and other entities that wish to speak out about candidates in the upcoming midterm elections, " said william McGinley [3]. I think both the candidates and parties are afraid of the new abilities of corporations and unions. They are more open to attacks from single issue groups or business who oppose their support for legislation. This also creates an even bigger divide in the two parties. Democrats are trying to paint the Republican support as favoring " even more big money and corporate special interests influencing the outcomes of elections," said Mr. Van Hollen. [4]. Brain Walsh, spokesman for the Republican Senate arm said, "Democrats are putting their partisan interests ahead of the 'constitutional right to free speech and fair elections'." [4]. I believe with side the American people take will be a huge effect of the coming election. I think interest groups are in support of this. "That was enacted seven years ago to cripple our ability to get our message out to people about issues of concern to the AFL-CIO," Larry Gold, an attorney for the union coalition, said. "We are a democratic membership organization. Our independent speech poses no threat to the system." [1]. Interests groups are happy to get a chance to speak for or against a candidate in the coming election. Some groups are even calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling" [1]. Congress has come out against the ruling. The Wall Street Journal reports "Both said they would hold hearings in the House and Senate to see what remedies for the Supreme Court decision were possible. President Barack Obama slammed the ruling in a press release and vowed to back those congressional efforts" [1]. Some ideas being considered for legislation are: requiring corporations to get shareholder approval before funding ads, blocking companies for deducting election spending as business expenses on their taxes and requiring CEO's to declare, "I'm the CEO of X Corp". [4]. I think this will help get people more involved. More groups can get their opinions into the campaign. This could ultimately hurt the candidates however. They would have less control over their message and campaign. They would have to make a greater effort of gaining support from more groups. They would have to react out to both the big corporations and the smaller groups who now have more influence. This overall helps groups get their message out but makes it more difficult for the candidates who are running.
I agree with the Court's ruling on the basis of the First Amendment. Though it does open the door for more spending by big corporations, it does also help the smaller corporations who did not have a chance with a PAC before. A big corporation can afford to have their big CEO's contribute to their PAC's while small ones couldn't [1]. I also agree with taking away the restriction on run ads within a certain amount of time from the election. I believe it doesn't effect the election. Candidates themselves are running negative ads and attacking the other candidate. This decision show their objections about a candidate up to election day.
[1] http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518751
[2] http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15394247
[3]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017191336805982.html
[4] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019561248784550.html#printMode
Short term, I believe that the ruling will stand. Nothing will be able to be done immediately because it is such a controversial issue. With such unlimited funding the amount spent on campaigns is going to be mind blowing. “Corporations and labor unions, which by implication now also will be free to spend without limit, have not been "censored" or "banned" from engaging in political speech, as the court claimed; rather, they have been required to spend through political action committees, which raise money in limited amounts from employees and members” (1). Long term, I believe that some type of action will be taken to limit funding. “President Obama said Thursday that he wants a "forceful response" to the ruling. That will not be easy, given its grounding in the Constitution. The decision invalidates state laws restricting corporate spending, which exist in nearly half the states. On a federal level, Congress could take steps to ameliorate the decision's impact, such as imposing stronger rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups or lifting limits on the amount that political parties can spend in conjunction with their candidates. But the damage of Thursday's ruling, under the false flag of free speech, will not be easily repaired” (1). In response to this, I see this as an accurate statement by the Washington Post, that President Obama will definitely be reacting to this and that Congress will probably set up and try to do something about it. But it will be hard to do considering the first amendment is taken very seriously. In response to this ruling, I think candidates will find funding a lot easier to get because there are no limits and same with political parties. They will be able to get funding easier allowing them to do even more campaigning and advertising than before. In regard to interest groups they will be able to give as much money as they want to the candidate they support. It could give them a stronger opinion when the candidates they support get into office if they are able to give a lot to the campaign or political party. Congress in response to the ruling will probably try to pass something that will limit funding some how. “Obama blasted yesterday's ruling as a victory for Wall Street, big banks, big oil and big insurance companies, and he called on Congress to take steps to fix it. But reform advocates admitted privately that they could see few avenues to do that in light of the broad language in the Supreme Court's decision” (2). I think Congress will turn special attention to the issue but it obviously will be hard to get anything passed without some hard work around the first amendment. Jan Baran thinks “The way it's going to affect an election is it's going to express certain opinions about candidates, and as the court opinion said today, that's what the First Amendment protects” (2). It's going to heat up elections a lot more and they will become even more dramatic with more putting down of the other candidate. It could hurt the way American elections occur because the drama aspect of it can wear people down and I feel as though many people are going to get sick of it pretty fast. One opinion on the way it could affect the American elections is that the ads could become more honest. “"The ads will get more honest," said Keating, director of Club for Growth, a group that supports candidates who call for lower taxes and smaller government. "Instead of having all this nonsense about 'Call him,' they'll tell you what to do: 'Go vote.” (3). I don't although believe that this is such a beneficial thing that the ruling should still stand.
I see where the Court is coming from when they say the it violates the first amendment. “This careful consideration convinces me that Congress violates the First Amendment when it decrees that some speakers may not engage in political speech at election time, when it matters most” (4). Although I believe the ruling is impractical and something will need to change. Elections will get out of control and so much money going to them. Elections will become all about money and spending big amounts of it. I believe Congress should take action here and some kind of restriction needs to be enacted that will not give a flat out unlimited amount of money to campaigns. I don't although think anything will be put into place until time shows how impractical of a decision it is.
1-The Supreme Court removes important limits on campaign finance
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
2-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
3-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
4-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
About two weeks ago the Supreme Court removed the restrictions on campaign finance making the McCain-Feingold Act void. Short term, I believe that the interest groups and rich party members of both parties may see short term gains by jumping on campaign contributions for the Midterm elections. Long term, I believe this can lead to bad consequences. First, this means that any cooperation of Wall Street business can literally send candidates millions of dollars or buy certain candidates off, thus increasing political corruption and weakening democracy as a whole (1). Second, this is a much more major advantage for the Republican party because empirically the party has been based around high income levels, meaning that the urban population or urban candidates will already be a major disadvantage in the race, ultimately limiting at least 50% of our population to support the candidates they want to win. Long term for the courts, I believe that this ruling may set a new precedent in terms of favoring cooperations over individual protection, but it's hard to tell because all the Justices have many different beliefs, so no precedent is possible as well. Either way, American courts may become much more conservative and libertarian on decisions like these if the Courts uphold and set a full precedent (2).
Based on the ground of the first amendment, I believe this decision does not make any sense and is a ridiculous contradiction to the original meaning of the Constitution. The Founding Father's worst fear to the new government was parties and little factions to take over, and seeing as how the law basically puts the whole campaign strategy in the hands of the free market businesses and rich interest groups, the freedom of speech is heavily favored to the more privileged rather than everyone (3). Due to the current stance of the Courts however, the best solution is for Congress to put heavy restrictions upon the limits of the rule in order to narrow its effect. I personally think this rule absolutely narrows the scope of individual protection and may prove to be a slippery slope regarding everyone as equal. This rule favors whoever has the most money over who is the best person for the job as a politican, and thus will increase corruption and kill democratic processes all over because our government will be run by elitists.
(1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
(3)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
The Supreme Court ruled at the end of January that corporations can spend unlimited sums of money to help elect candidates in a campaign. This ruling overthrew the president made in 2003 by the McCain-Feingold Act that barred corporate advertising close to an election. In the short run I think that this will be put into effect strongly but that overtime it will cool off to the point that people think it an unnecessary restriction. Liberals probably think this a good idea because for the most part they believe that campaigns shouldn't be based on money and advertisements as much as it should focus on the issues and topics at hand. Conservatives probably think exactly the opposite and are very happy that there is no restriction on the money spent. Interest groups are probably acting in according to their party. I think that this provision will affect the way that American elections work greatly and in a negative way. If an individual can spend any amount of money they wish and take as many donations as it is offered then said individual could just buy the election. Campaigns and elections should not be centered around money and advertising, it should be about the candidate, their views, and what they can do for our country.
I disagree with the court's decision because I believe elections should be about more than money. I think that the court should have just left the Act alone and let it stand. It's only be in order for six years and I don't think that is enough time to see if they need to put provisions on it or break it all together.
The ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission will without a doubt effect campaigns and politics in the future. I hope that this decision will not last long but it may last long enough to impact the next presidential election. The possible effects it could have on campaigning strike me as predominantly negative. Although I am not in favor of governmental restrictions in most places, I have to say that this campaign finance is an exception. In an age when we see less of the actual nominees during campaigning than ever before – due to sound bites being aired instead of full speeches and things alike – we do not need other forces stealing time away from the candidates, which is exactly what will happen after this decision. With absolutely no limits on big businesses and interest groups as to how much they spend and when they air their advertisements, we will see more of them and less of the candidates. I’d personally rather see those that are running for office than those that are not.
In an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, it was said that the court found “no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers”.(1) I do not believe that restricting corporation and interest group spending on campaigns is unconstitutional. If we remember back to what we learned about those who wrote the Constitution we will remember that those very men designed that very document to protect the people from factions. I’m sure they would roll over in their grave if they saw how much influence these groups will now have in government after this decision. Although the First Amendment protects the right to free speech, we need to hit the refresh button and look at it with a modern pair of eyes. Yes, corporations deserve to have a say in the matter just like everyone else. However, the relationship between big business and government has become too cozy as it is and letting them have any more influence may end up being detrimental to campaigning. Limiting the amount they can spend and when they can spend it is not censoring, it’s a safeguard to protect our government from becoming even more elitist.
Also, we cannot put these groups and businesses on the same levels of people. They still don’t possess the most important right that individuals have in the political game; they don’t have the right to vote. Well, of course they don’t…they are corporations, right? But then why are they now treated as if they are individuals? If we allow them to spend money on campaigns, let’s give the corporations the right to vote as well! Think about it. If limiting how much they can spend on campaign finance is unconstitutional, then restricting them from voting is wrongful on so many levels.(2)
Moving on, this decision will lead to advertisements by businesses who support a candidate because it is in their best interest, not in the people’s best interests. Once again, this is very dangerous and hopefully something will be done to overturn the decision. It will be hard, however, given the ruling’s “grounding in the Constitution.”(1)
What I think the courts should have done was stick to the precedents. Interest groups and businesses already have a fair share, if not more than that, of influence in campaigns. I think the McCain-Feingold, although full of loopholes, was a decent guard against businesses becoming overbearing during election campaigns. To me, it would have been acceptable if they would have stuck to precedent.(1)
1- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
2- http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/a-few-reminders-for-the-constitutionally-challenged-83191882.html
In an important decision made Thursday January 21st the Supreme Court overruled two important precedents about the first amendment rights of corporations, ruling that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections [1]. The short-term impacts of the decision will be that this change in ruling will definitely be seen in the 2010-midterm elections for the House and Senate races [1]. President Obama said that it was, “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” One can only predict that the interests of big corporations like Obama mentioned above will be campaigned for, and pushed as they will now be allowed to spend an unlimited amount of money and are not restricted to when they can express their opinions [2]. These large corporations, who were already some of the biggest frontrunners in campaign contributions, will dominate the political elections from here on out. I think that the long term effects of this decision will be that unions and corporations will be spending more, and have the potential to benefit one party with their contributions [3]. This may pressure Congress to eliminate the caps on the amount of money that parties themselves are able to spend, so that elections aren’t dominated by ads that support a candidate who is perceived to promote the interests of free enterprise and business [3]. Overall the decision means that elections in all levels of government will be effected—meaning that many laws on state and local levels are now ineffective [3].
In response to this ruling candidates, parties, interest groups, and Congress will all have different strategies to handle the outcome of the ruling. Candidates who support big businesses and corporations will benefit from the ruling because the corporations will be able to spend an unlimited amount that will end up with results in the candidates favor [2]. Parties, as I mentioned earlier, may pressure Congress to eliminate the caps on the amount of money they can spend to keep up with unions and corporations [3]. They’ll have to work harder then ever before to make sure that the candidates and parties viewpoints are heard above big business [3]. President Obama has already gone to Congress to ask them to fix the mess the court has created, but analysts see little that congress can do in light of the court’s broad language [3]. Although Congress may be able to enact laws that defy the courts decision, it will only be a matter of time until they are found unconstitutional [3]. I think that overall this ruling will hurt the way American elections occur because too many strong influences will be in the game. The ruling gives so much power to those with money, making it a less democratic process. I agree with Obama when he said that powerful interest “marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans”. I think that with this ruling that this will become even more exaggerated.
Although I don’t necessarily agree with the results that will come from the courts ruling, I do think that it was the right one. I do think that corporate spending in elections is protected by the first amendment under free speech so they should be able to spend whatever amount they want. I think that the implications and results from this ruling are unfortunate, and it is a possibility that the courts should have considered them. Today making a ruling on what is constitutional is rarely that anymore. It’s a decision about what is constitutional, and what will happen to the lives of our citizens. By adhering to a strict interpretation of the constitution, I think that it means elections could become less democratic because people will know more opinions of more people, but they won’t necessarily be represented equally. I am interested to see what congress will come up with in response to this issue to try to combat the barrage of campaign spending by interest groups that is sure to ensue. I think that the ruling on the case was accurate, but only time can tell if this was the correct decision for America or not.
[1]. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
[2]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
[3]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
The Supreme Court of the United States of America is a force to be reckoned with. Although at times unpopular and sometimes even rude, the Court has a reputation and an obligation to be fair, just, and precise. Throughout history, this has been arguably achieved. However, the new decision by the court to remove certain limits on campaign finance is a choice that many find disturbing, including myself.
First, a bit of background. The case in question involves the conservative action group Citizens United, and their advertisement, known as “Hillary: The Movie” (1). This group wanted to challenge the part of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited corporate and union political advertising close to the time of an election (1). To any person slightly educated in United States Government, it is obvious that such precautions are intended to reduce the chance of negative advertisements being unfair to candidates so close to election time. Most do not challenge such statutes. However, Citizens United found it necessary to attempt to change this law to give corporations an easier time making their voices heard. In my opinion, corporations in the United States need little assistance in influencing politics and giving their own advice.
Short term impacts of this decision are easy to see. First of all, it impacts how people view corporations. The new law implies that corporations can be treated as people, which is disturbing on many levels. A corporation is not a tangible person, it is simply a superficial network of people, and therefore is not subject to the same constitutional rights as an individual. The main argument for the decision is that the first amendment rights of freedom of association apply to a corporation. However, a corporation is not necessarily an association. The first amendment does not apply to a corporation. Short term effects such as the corporatization of the election process simply leads to more disastrous long-term effects such as the corporatization of American culture in general. As time has moved on, conservatives have rallied behind the fallacy that by making business even stronger than it is and by making these businesses able to monitor and impact American society in a huge amount we make America better. This is obviously untrue. People such as President Obama have already rallied behind dissent of this decision (2). They support my opinion, which is that a corporation can not capitalize on such decisions. There is an important difference between corporations and people.
Candidates will have a harder time in their campaign process because of this decision. Former Republican National Committee general counsel Ben Ginsberg says “It is gonna look an awful lot like the wild, wild West when the election season heats up more” (2). This means that candidates will be facing far more cutthroat, sinister competition that is, well, plainly just unfair. The McCain-Feingold Act was intended to protect the sanctity of the final days before an election, and if organizations can run whatever they want within that time, then there is no one to keep the playing field remotely even. It simply exacerbates divisions in parties even further, intensifying the polarization of America. Interest groups will have a considerably easier time working within their limitations now to influence public opinion and who gets in office. Congress has limited power now to influence the election process, even more than they had before.
I think that it will hurt far more than help American elections. For example, “Hillary: The Movie” was intended to simply “chip away” at the electorate (3). Therefore, by letting videos and advertisements play in the grace period where nobody is supposed to advertise, you ruin this restraint and impact the election negatively. Negative advertisements have been shown to both get certain people elected, and also reduce voter turnout. Therefore, by increasing the period where people can advertise, you run the risk of further decreasing the pitiful 30% of eligible American voters.
Like I have already stated, I disagree with the Court’s ruling on the basis of its argument, treating corporations like people, and that it will hurt the American election process. I think the court should have upheld the precedent of the McCain-Feingold Act, or even further reduced the freedoms of these corporations. Only time will tell whether or not this decision will truly impact in such a negative way, but I fear it has the possibility to.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
2) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012103582_pf.html
Recently, the Supreme Court voted in a 5-4 decision to “defend” the First Amendment by deciding that corporations “have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech.” This means that the precedent set in 1947 has now been changed, and corporations will now be able to use as much money as they like to “endorse or oppose” political candidates (2). In the short term, this change in court rulings will probably cause a huge jump in corporate spending for elections. Now they won’t have to go through PAC’s which have some limits on contributions, and they will be able to donate directly and in as high of sums as they wish (3). This could potentially become very apparent in the next midterm elections for the Congressional seats that will be opening up. I am not sure how much corporations will be willing to spend, simply because in essentially all modern time they have not been able to spend over a certain amount, however, I think that what will most likely happen is that we will see companies spend very large amounts now, thinking that they will be able to make a huge difference in the campaign, and then possibly back off later when they realize that it may not make as large of a difference as they think. Then again, I could be completely wrong in this thinking, and we could see corporate spending go up and make a huge difference in the polls, and only get bigger from there. Ultimately this ruling will also lead to very creative and new ways of campaigning. Like the Hilary Clinton “movie” that the ruling was based off of, I think campaign strategies will become more modernized and use even more technology. I can picture companies doing many things to get the word out about their candidate, from longer television commercials to things like giving away free products with a candidates face on it. I can’t even imagine what the next presidential campaign will look like with this ruling in tact. I have a feeling that if we are sick of negative campaign commercials now, that it is only going to become much much worse.
The effect this will have on candidates will probably be that they are more likely to target their campaigns toward big companies who have a history of supporting candidates in the past. I can see nominees, especially presidential ones, making many claims to help corporations with lots of money, in order to gain campaign funds. I think ultimately this ruling will probably help conservative candidates more than liberal ones, just because in the past, conservative leaders have been more likely to support large corporations, or corporations with many ties, whereas liberal candidates have more support from “blue collar” companies who may not have the funds to help them, but do have the vote. I think parties will probably act in a similar way to candidates. They may add more to party platforms to satisfy large corporations in order to gain funding. As far as interest groups go, they may now get less funding from corporate groups, because corporations no longer need to go through interest groups and PAC to donate money. However, I think it mat still be too early to tell. Congress is now facing pressure to “remove limits on party spending.” (3) It would make sense that they would do this in order to follow the court rulings, however it remains to be seen how long this will take, or whether or not it will even happen.
I think that ultimately this will hurt the way elections are run. I think it is the first step in leading to corrupt government, and although I can see where the Court is coming from, this decision seems almost irresponsible to me. I believe it will make large, rich corporations have a huge role in deciding politics. Although campaign spending can only do so much, many people don’t take the time to really get to know the facts and with the extra campaigning that will be flying around, and I can see votes being essentially bought. I disagree with this ruling, because I believe, as one of the article states, that this “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.” (1) I don’t really believe that corporations fall into the same category as people when it comes to protection under the First Amendment. I think that the Court had already sent a precedent in the McCain-Feingold ruling that was working well, and should’ve been kept. In fact, I am not even sure why this issue was brought up again in court. Overall, I think that this ruling will hurt and not help the election process, and even if it is constitutional, which it isn’t necessarily, I don’t think it should’ve been decided this way because it will lead to many problems in the future, and in a way questions the well-being of Democracy in America.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
The new supreme court decision on campaign finance may have big implications in upcoming elections. The decision basically eliminated restrictions on corporations and by implication unions and other groups that want to support candidates for office. These restrictions were largely put in place by the Mccain-Feingold act as well as by the FEC. (1) This court ruling overturned 100 years of precedent of other court rulings that said that it was okay to put restrictions on corporate spending because corporations are not people. In older court decisions, it has been made clear that it is not an infringement on first amendment rights to limit corporations because nowhere in the first amendment are corporations mentioned. I think this is the major issue with this current court ruling. This is clearly an act of judicial activism; the decision was rendered by a 5-4 majority along basically partisan lines. And yes, the court can be very partisan (2).
The paradoxical thing about this ruling is the hypocritical use of the idea of judicial restraint. Justice Kennedy made the statement that the government should not be allowed to put restraint on certain disfavored speakers. That does not make any sense. First of all, if anything, the people who were most favored were heard through PACs. If anything, the disfavored speakers, you know , those that don’t agree with the government, are probably the ones who are marginalized by the system and don’t have a way of speaking as it is, those speakers won’t get heard by REMOVING campaign finance reform. Furthermore, Kennedy treats this as if it is protected under the first amendment when the first amendment clearly says nothing about corporations. So if he is trying to go back to the constitution, he is failing to do it by adding his own spin on what the constitution said. (2)
Allow this ruling seems to “open up the playing field” to anyone who wants to be involved in putting money into campaigns (including unions), this clearly is not the case. Big corporations are going to be way ahead when it comes to money. The reason that campaign finance has always been an issue is because there needed to be something to LEVEL the playing field. While the supreme court is supposed to uphold the constitution which purportedly GIVES rights to people, this ruling effectively takes away rights of people who don’t have a lot of money. They use this verbiage of “free speech” as a façade to be able to give speech to the haves and take from the marginalized. It isn’t free speech if some people get to yell and others can only whisper. (3)
1 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
2 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
3 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
This new precedent set by the Supreme Court has been a shocking surprise to me. I am against the Court ruling because I can only think of companies paying government officials more than they already pay; which is too much as it is. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his opposition opinion that the five justice majority decision was a “radical departure from precedent from 100 years of law…corporations could still contribute…” (3). This new decision seems too radical and too gracious to companies and interest groups that have the majority of the money to give to political figures.
I cannot imagine fully how this will affect the politics of America but I know that there will be some short and long term affects. First of all, now that special interest groups can spend as much as they want, parties may be weakened while groups are able to spend unlimited amounts(1). I think that this takes the politics out of government because nominations and policymaking become more about the phrase, "Money talks". Ben Ginsberg, a former Republican leader says that the Supreme Court has "put in a really bad system, candidates are small voices special interests groups are running supreme" (1). The long term affects will also be an advantage for wealthy companies over unions that do not make as much money. If they can spend more in a political world that sets no limits, then they have more potential power(2).
One argument that is in favor of the decision is that the companies will have honest ads instead of ads that beat around the bush to get their opinion across (2). I still feel like this is an injustice to small corporations or even political interest groups who do not make as much.
I think that the Congress and President Obama need to work together to make a new bill to pass through Congress immediately and form a new law against unlimited corporate donations to parties. President Obama has already replied to this Court decision. The president wants a new bill to be passed. NPR says, "President Obama swiftly blasted the court's decision, calling on Congress to devise a "forceful response" as quickly as possible" (3).
I disagree with this decision. I know that the First Amendment does guarantee freedom of speech, but there are some limitations that need to be placed on the effectiveness of monetary donations to political parties. I think that this new decision places priority and importance on cash donations. If a interest group does not like the way a candidate is acting, they can easily support the opposing candidate in the next election with millions of dollars in order to secure victory (3). I think that the precedent of limitations on corporate spending on political parties needs to be followed because now that they have no limitations, they have more influence with money that the political parties themselves. It seems backwards that the candidates are not able to receive as much money on their own than contributions from corporations. I think that the minority opinion in the Supreme Court case has a very valid point that I mentioned earlier. The decision was radical that goes against prior precedents passed by the Court and that corporations could still contribute under the McCain-Feingold Act.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898&ps=rs
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666&ps=rs
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court “…[swept] aside a century old understanding and…ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections” [2]. Supporters of this decision say that this is a major victory for free speech [4]. Still, according to the website for National Public Radio, this new ruling “…blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns” [3].
Foreshadowing the nations’ reaction to this new ruling, the Court was not in agreement about this issue and decision. Minority ‘leader’ Justice John Paul Stevens “…lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided”…in a powerfully worded, lengthy dissent” [3]. According to Justice Stevens, "The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation" [3]. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor were the other Justices of the minority [3].
Interestingly, other legal sources question the Court’s understanding of the issues. Former Milwaukee County District Attorney E-Michael McCann argues against the ruling, saying “It in effect says corporations are individuals. Historically in this country we saw the clear distinction between the two. A corporation is fiction, it's not a real existing individual. It ought not have the same rights as an individual" [4]. However, this new ruling clearly regards corporations as individuals that merit free speech rights [4].
The immediate implications of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision overturning the McCain-Feingold Act are sure to be apparent, as are the long term implications. Steve Simpson, a member of the Institute for Justice, says “Freeing corporate speech will lead to what more speech always leads to – a debate… Corporations do not speak with one voice any more than individuals do” [1]. Although Mr. Simpson’s opinion could be used to argue both the immediate and long term implications of this new decision, I would wager that his argument will be much stronger in the more immediate future. As NPR pointed out, long before this decision was made, the price tag on national campaigns had been growing more and more expensive despite the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold Act [3].
In the long term, I believe we will see a continued climb in the price of campaigning for any election for public office. This, according to Fox News, “…has potential to corrupt our democratic system” [4]. This statement from Fox News is mildly ironic as Fox is considered to have a Conservative pull to its reporting. However, this opinion is supported by other news sources – both biased and unbiased. NPR’s Nina Totenberg went as far as to say “[The Supreme Court’s ruling] will undoubtedly help Republican candidates since corporations have generally supported Republican candidates more” [3]. Many watchdog groups now worry that the Court has increased the role of special interest groups in politics [3].
However, some restrictions still remain. Corporations are still banned from giving money directly to federal candidates or national party committees [3]. Nonprofit groups are also still required to include disclosure in their ads, as well [3].
In response, President Obama called on Congress to create a “forceful response” in legislation to the Court’s decision [3]. Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin is already co-sponsoring a new bill called the Fair Elections Now Act to counteract this new ruling [3]. This bill would “…allow candidates to choose to run for congressional office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists” [3].
The Supreme Court ruling to overturn the McCain-Feingold Act will bring on many changes in the way that elections are run and who they are dominated by. The short term effects will obviously become apparent in the upcoming midterm elections and especially the 2012 presidential election. Corporations and the small, wealthy elite in America now have freedom to spend as much money as they want to either oppose or support candidates, which will give these corporations unequal access to power and influence in political campaigns (1). I believe that the long term effects will be way more extreme than just the shift in power for the upcoming elections. Corporations and wealthy supporters of candidates will soon dominate the election process and the candidates will have virtually no say in how they wish to run their campaign (2). The candidates will have no choice but to spend tremendous amounts of money on their campaign if they want to have a chance at winning. And who will they appeal to? The big wealthy corporations that have absolutely nothing in common with everyday Americans, but provide the candidates with large sums of money and influence. Another long term effect of this decision is that since parties have limits on how much can be spent in their campaigns, and corporations will be giving millions upon millions of dollars towards the campaigns, there will most likely be a push for legislation to be passed that would increase party spending limits or even completely abolish them (3). It is hard to say, but I think that the amount of money that each party will use or receive through PACs and corporations in campaigns will balance each other out. In other words, each candidate from the two major parties will have an equal shot of winning since both sides will be associated with large amounts of money. This is not, however, in any way beneficial to third parties, which will not stand a chance after this new ruling since they will not even come close to raising enough money to compete with the major parties.
I do not agree with the court’s ruling. First, it gives big-money corporations way too much say in campaigns when these wealthy corporations are anything BUT a representation of the American public (4). Second, I think that elections will get out of hand in the amount of money that will be spent on them, as well as the number and intensity of attack ads that are put out by the opposition parties. Lastly, I think that this decision did not work towards guaranteeing the freedom of speech, but rather, lessened it in campaigns. By allowing opposition parties to issue attack ads within 60 days of the election, the party being attacked then gets their freedom of speech severely limited, because they may not have time to fight back or argue against the claims. I don’t believe that a ruling to allow unlimited spending will do much to increase first amendment rights. Instead of this ruling, I think the court should have ruled that limited campaign spending is not a barrier to the right of freedom of speech; it is necessary in order to amplify democracy, fairness, and equal representation in political campaigns.
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
Recently, the Supreme Court turned over the McCain-Feingold Act, ruling a large part of the bill unconstitutional and essentially stating that setting a limit on business spending in elections is not okay. The reactions to and implications of this decision are very mixed. Some believe that this shows the court will be making more and more sweeping, bold rulings during this session (2). At the same time, other political experts claim that the court will have used most of its “energy” up on this case (2). Some people believe that this ruling will improve campaigns, by allowing corporations to be more straightforward with their advertising, and directly tell voters of their goals (1). Meanwhile, many people are very upset by this act, and feel that it will increase the role of media in campaigns disproportionately while shifting the focus away from the actual candidates (3). This is partly because political candidates still face tight limits on campaign spending (3). I believe that this will hurt the American election process. Campaigns should be about choosing the candidate that best reflects their wishes and not about which candidate can get the most support from big business. If this continues, it will increase the number of those people that believe in the truths of elitist theory.
I disagree completely with the Court’s actions. It is a large stretch to count money spent on campaigns as a First Amendment right (3). As Fred Wertheimer said, "With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy.” If such spending is a Constitutional right, than that should apply to candidate spending as well (2). If the power that business interests have in elections continues to grow, democracy in the US is completely at risk. It is just to impose spending limits.
Sources:
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
This January the Supreme Court made a controversial ruling on campaign finance in the case Citizens United vs. FEC (1). An ideologically divided court ruled 5-4 to remove regulations on corporate spending in elections. This effectively overruled much of the McCain-Feingold Act as well as the previous 2003 court decision in McConnell v. FEC (1).
I do not believe that the effects of this ruling will be extremely far-reaching. In the short term, American elections will probably include more advertising, whether it be on the television, radio, billboards, etc. However, an increase in advertising expenses is not a departure from modern campaign trends. Given the many loopholes to McCain-Feingold, including independent expenditures and 527 groups, campaign expenditures have already increased in recent years (2). For example, over $3 billion was spent on television advertising in the 2008 presidential campaign whereas only $1.7 billion was spent in 2004 (2). Furthermore, since significant loopholes existed to previous laws, unlimited corporate expenditures is not a radical departure from the past. The most significant change I see (in terms of how the ruling affects the average American) is the type of advertising that corporations may use. For example, many more businesses may undertake more expensive advertising projects, such as films and books, because there is no limit to how much they can spend (3)
In the long term, I believe that Congress will enact new legislation to try and limit large contributions. While unlimited corporate donations may seem appealing to some at first, especially Republican incumbents running for election, eventually candidates will reach a maximum amount of advertising that they can logistically manage. They also may experience outcries from the American people in regards to over-advertising and excessive attacking of their opponents. Hence, they will try to resolve the problem and end the public’s outcries with new legislation that once again attempts to limit corporate election donations. The most interesting part of this will center around Congress’s ability to create legislation that could easily be upheld by the Supreme Court if corporate interests were challenge the legality of it. As a result of Citizens United vs. FEC, corporate interests will have precedent and the powerful First Amendment rights arguments on their side.
Overall, I agree with the Court’s ruling based on the exact text of the First Amendment and precedent established in Buckley v. Valeo. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court first tied the issue of campaign finance to the First Amendment by stating that independent expenditures and personal spending were considered freedoms of speech (4). This made the issue much more sensitive and, in turn, much more difficult to regulate. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (5). Since campaign finance has clearly been established as form of free political speech, I think that it is constitutionally wrong for Congress to regulate it. Whether or not this is best for the well-being of our democracy or if it represents the Founders’ original intentions for our country is another debate. It is the Supreme Court’s job to determine the constitutionality of laws based solely on the Constitution, not public opinion and what justices believe to be best for the country. Basing its decision on the powerful statements in the Constitution and Buckley v. Valeo precedent (as it should), the Court ruled correctly.
1: http://onthedocket.org/articles/2010/01/21/justices-roll-back-campaign-spending-limits-landmark-case-jan-21-2010
2: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/15/ad.spending/index.html
3: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/12/supreme-court-poised-shake-campaign-finance-restrictions/
4: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_75_436
5: Edwards, George C. Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2006.
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission is likely a case that will be remembered for many years to come. The Supreme Court recently ruled that limits on campaign contributions violated first amendment rights. This overturns many provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act. The case was brought about by a conservative group called Citizens United, who wanted to release a feature length movie as a negative advertisement in 2008 (1). The court stated that the group had the right of free speech. This is a case that could potentially have a drastic effect on elections. Short-term effects are that corporate spending in elections will increase. Groups will have no spending limit, and won’t be censored or banned for engaging in political speech (1). There are some who are very worried about this new development. Union activist Steve Rosenthal states that allowing corporations unlimited spending, it will give them an unfair advantage over unions and smaller groups (3). Another effect will be that campaign ads will be more direct. Instead of presenting negative ads, or saying “call your congressman,” ads can simply state, “go and vote for candidate x.” (3). The campaign will be more about getting the big companies to advertise instead of going after the average voter. Long-term effects are a little more unpredictable. This case has shown that the current court is not afraid to act boldly and overturn precedent (2). Whether or not they will continue this trend in future decisions is unknown. This case could eventually become non-important, depending on the other branches of government. The courts have made their decision, now it is up to the legislative and executive to enforce it. President Obama has already declared opposition to the ruling (1). He wants a “forceful response” by Congress. Still, whatever they come up with is going to be hard to overturn a precedent that is based in the first amendment.
Personally, I am very split on this decision. From a constitution stand point, it was the right decision. Everyone is entitled to free speech, especially politically. However, from a practical point of view, this was the wrong decision. The limits in McCain-Feingold were meant to make elections more fair and balanced, not violate the constitution. Personally, I think elections will become less democratic by implementing the court’s decision. They will be controlled by the elite and wealthy. A justice can either interpret the constitution very strictly, or use their opinion to make a decision. It brings up many questions about the Supreme Court. Are they appointed to make decisions of their own choices, or be eternal law keepers of the constitution? It will be hard to judge whether this was a good or bad decision until we’ve had time to see the effects it has on policy in the years to come.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
This comment has been removed by the author.
The decision made by the Supreme Court on Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission will forever impact how the United States views the Supreme Court. By not following the precedent previously set down by the Courts (1), the Supreme Court has now weakened itself by the contradiction it has named. I think that all political groups will try to use this new decision to expand the amount of money that they can give/receive. For example, Republicans believe that this announcement will lead to a surge in corporate support for their candidates (2). I also think that the ability to run the ads closer and closer to election day will mean that more negative ads will be run. More and more groups will try to convince the courts that their ads are like the Hillary Clinton movie and therefore are within their rights to run it (4).
I think that this was a very poor choice for the Supreme Court. Part of my opinion on this comes from the weakening of Court, by making this ruling they have placed the the Court in a vulnerable position. By contradicting a ruling they made a mere 8 years ago makes the Court look like they easily change their opinion, and legislation should not be made on Supreme Court decisions because the Court will just make a contradicting ruling in a few years. Especially since the Court was so divided, the Court should have waited longer until they could all decide one way or the other. By having the decision divided, the signal they are sending to the government and the people is that by choosing a more liberal or conservative judge will supremely effect the decision that will be made by the court, instead of the Court being unbiased. I think that if the Court had to make a ruling giving corporations the ability to "donate" more money through their independent expenditures, then the Court should have included a clause about being monitored by the FEC, or having some other regulatory measures.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
(3)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012103582_pf.html
I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in campaign finance donations. I think this decision will have many more negative effects than positive effects. I wanted to know why all of a sudden the court decided to overturn the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act. So I found out why. “The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign. But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.” (1) Besides (sort of) contradicting the 1st amendment, the previous court decision seemed to work just fine. I agree with a statement by Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, “With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy.” (4)
Short term impacts: A whole new perspective and influence on the mid-term elections and more competitiveness between the two major parties to get a “leg-up” on the ruling. Since this decision will open many more doors in the political world, each party will want to make sure they use it to their advantage, which will happen ASAP.
Long term impacts: There are many more long term impacts to this decision. Especially negative impacts. Some include: A necessity for huge sums money to run campaigns, less democratic, less honest, a much bigger advantage to the rich, advantage to interest groups with money, more negative advertising which will make politics and the government look corrupt and bad, I believe it could even result in a lower voter turnout, and “the decision could lead to the creation of a new wave of single-issue political groups, including some formed by sitting lawmakers.” (4) In addition, it will even more discourage qualified candidates from running for political offices because of the future huge sums of money they will need. Resulting in advantages to incumbents. This ruling will have a negative effect on government as a whole. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” (3)
Candidates will become much nastier and more competitive. Interest Groups will be able to favor supporting candidates by insulting opposing candidates. Political Parties will try to accumulate as much money as they can. This will definitely favor the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is going to need to find ways to collect huge sums of money. I could see this court decision negatively affecting the Democratic Party. Democrats realize this and have already started reacting to the court decision. “Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said they will hold hearings and introduce legislation in an effort to blunt the effect of the decision.” (2) I believe it will greatly hurt the way American elections occur. People are obviously going to use this decision to their advantage. It will make politics and the government look less respectful. People may view politics as one big huge argument with no signs of compromise and humility.
Citations:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/21/us/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance.html
2.http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/21/democrats-vow-to-stop-campaign-finance-changes-after-supreme-cou/
3. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31786.html
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
In the first few years I believe that there might be an increase in negative ads and politicians pandering a bit more to corporations to but I don’t believe that there will be a humongous proliferation of negative advertising or corporations dominating campaigns. Evidence shows that corporations only used 10% of the maximum PAC spending (2)
. If the majority of corporations were at the maximum of their allotted spending we might have seen a bigger explosion of corporation dominated finance. I believe there may be a blippy increase in spending in the next few election cycles as corporations and unions are getting used to their new found freedom. But, if trends continue this ruling shouldn’t make a huge impact on campaign finance (1). 28 states don’t have restrictions on corporation spending in political campaigns and no one has called fowl (2)
. I realize that national elections tend to cost more and money does play a bigger role, especially with the role television plays. However, the 527 groups that were able to use the loophole, especially after Wisconsin Right of Life used their money to grassroots lobby not on commercials. (2) Also, corporations have more to lose by coming out as for or against a particular candidate. They could potentially isolate consumers. The majority of businesses have chosen to stay out of politics rather than donating the money they could have. I really don’t think this decision is going to impact campaigns substantially. At least, no more than the 527 and the 501 © loopholes have already done so (1). I hope that Congress passes a bill that determines that international corporations do not have the same rights as corporations based in the US (4). Congress probably won’t act very quickly on anything. Obama seems to be the only major politician that has protested this decision. Congress hasn’t said much, nor have they done much historically (4).
I personally disagree with this decision. I do not believe that corporations can be given the same rights as individuals. I am by no means a strict constructionist; however, I do believe that the Bill of Rights was put in place so individuals could make sure that the government will listen to them (3). I think that it is a bit of a stretch to say that the government should protect the right to free speech of for profit companies. The vote was 5-4 which, to me, is a bit unsettling. This is a huge decision and one judge determined the fate of our campaign finance (I believe this is credited to Kennedy (2)).
(1) http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/opinion/la-oe-weissman28-2010jan28
(2) http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=News&storyID=15878
(3) http://www.statepress.com/node/10364
(4) http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/79069-congress-can-level-the-playing-field-on-campaign-finance
On January 21st, 2010, the Supreme Court made a historic decision regarding Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission. In siding with Citizens United, the Court has reversed a long, ongoing trend to increasingly limit political spending by corporations and unions (2). Specifically, it ruled "that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, because doing so would be in noncompliance with the First Amendment (3)." In both the short run and the long run, we can expect a significant increase in corporations, unions, and interest groups' presence in political campaigns. The primary concern regarding that is the fear that such organizations will dominate the political discussion with the large quantities of funds available to them (2). However, others feel that the Supreme Court is upholding the first amendment with its decision, arguing that the decision prevents some absurd restrictions of free speech (1).
I personally agree that the Supreme Court's decision is the logical choice in terms of constitutionality, although I'm not sure how I feel about the spirit of the decision. Ultimately, I support the Court's decision. The laws as they stood were excessively restrictive (1), and it is definitely unconstitutional to limit how people and organizations of people can support candidates for office. How pragmatically detrimental or beneficial the decision is will only become evident as we see the change take place.
1. "Newsflash: First Amendment Upheld" By Bradley Smith
2. "The Supreme Court Removes Important Limits On Campaign Finance" By The Washington Post
3. "Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission" By Wikipedia
President Obama said that he wanted “forceful response” in opposition to the new ruling (2). Whatever this forceful response is, it will be considered a short-term impact. I think long-term impacts will include pushing our way of governing to a much more elitist society. Big corporate businesses have already made a mark on policies as well as elections, and limitless financing by those businesses in the future, will simply heighten their amount of influence. Strategists say that there will be much more truth in advertising (3).
Candidates will have to fight to get their voices heard with the increase of corporate financing and advertising (3). They will also have difficulty in controlling the message of the election (3). Interest groups will no longer have to form PAC to donate to candidates, and will be able to come out and actually tell the public to vote for a particular candidate in their ads, no longer needing to form 527 groups (2). Also regarding interest groups, the president of the Public Affairs Council said that this new decision could lead to a new wave of single-issue political groups (2). Congress can impose rules against coordination between campaigns and outside groups or lifting limits on the amount that political parties can spend in conjunction with their candidates (1). In my opinion, restricting the coordination between campaigns and outside groups violates the first amendment far more than restricting corporate spending in an election. It will hurt the nature of American elections in the future. There are already way too many advertisements during the election season, and this number will only increase with the ability to spend limitless amounts of money by the big corporations. I think it will be much harder for the public to set the policies of the actual candidates straight from the groups that create separate policy ads. There is already a low level of political participation, and I think there is a possibility in the public becoming even more reluctant to participate with more advertising. The United States spends much more money on campaigning than any other country and this new decision will increase this gap.
I think the court’s ruling on this case goes beyond what the Constitution says. The First Amendment is all about the freedom to voice your opinions (1). Although your opinion can be voiced by a means of donating to a candidate or party, election financing was never meant by the Founders to be included in the First Amendment. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the meaning of the Constitution, which includes the written intent. I believe the new ruling goes beyond their power. Also, the court has disregarded the precedent of previous courts, including one of only six years ago (2). I do not think this is a very good argument against the ruling because the Supreme Court has the ability to overturn decisions, and simply because it is a short time period, should not affect their ability to do their job.
Sources:
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/ AR2010012104482pf.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/ AR2010012104866_pf.html
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
Recently, the United States Supreme Court voted five to four in favor of removing important restrictions on political contributions that could be made by a company. Previously, corporations had been banned from using profits to support or oppose any political candidates. However, after the Supreme Court decision, they are now free to spend as much as they want, because a corporation has “the same rights of free speech as a person (1).” In my opinion, this will be a large negative for the country, in the short term, and in the long term. This will cause big business and lobbyists to have even more influence in Washington then they have now. More politicians will make decisions based off a few special interests. This decision will cause more and more corruption in American politics, as this effectively makes it legal for a company to buy off a candidate (1). One effect this might also have, that may be a positive, is that negativity of campaign ads in recent elections might decrease, as companies will not want to lose the business of the people who support the candidate they would be attacking. So, ads might become more focused on what their candidate does well as opposed to what the other candidates do poorly (2). This is not a partisan issue in my opinion. I believe that this decision will have opposition from both Democrats and Republicans. Senator McCain and President Obama have both already voiced their opposition to this decision. I also believe this will hurt elections in America, because this will further increase the cynicism that Americans have about politicians, and less people will vote, because of the corporate influence on politics. I believe the Supreme Court was wrong in this decision, because of all the negatives I listed above, such as increase corporate influence in Washington, and corruption. Considering precedent, the Supreme Court ruled the McCain-Feingold bill constitutional just six years ago. I think they should have upheld McCain-Feingold.
(1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
(2)http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
The Supreme Court threw out a ban on corporate spending, unions, and states to support candidates for office in a 5-4 ruling that goes against precedents (1). The conservative Court, thanks to appointments made by Bush, pointed out that the campaign spending is a First Amendment right and therefore, is constitutional. (1). Proponents argue that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to the freedom of speech (2). However, President Obama says "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." (2) I think that a short term goal will be the increase in spending by corporations and unions on political ads. Corporations will no longer have to use PACs and independent expenditures to show their support or distaste for a particular candidate. I think this may lead to more honest ads because ads will be able to be more direct since those that are producing them wont have to skirt around the issues as they once did due to campaign finance restrictions (3). Trevor Potter, chairman of the Federal Election Commission said, "Suddenly, the prospect of a corporation that's unhappy with a zoning decision — or the action of a local mayor — being able to go in and spend enough money to defeat them in the next election, or elect a new town council — all with corporate funds — is going to be a big shock." (1). I think a long term impact of this decision may be a reduction in democracy (4). Large corporations have a leg-up financially when it comes to supporting candidates and now that they are freely able to exercise this advantage, it will probably lead to less of a voice for smaller, less financially-capable groups. Another long-term impact might be that parties may become weaker because this decision still limits them regarding the amount of money parties can raise (1). I think candidates may stop trying to appeal to the people as much and begin to try to appeal on large corporations that have the ability to help them out a great deal during their campaigns. I also think this decision may help the Republican Party or Republican candidates more because, generally, they are on the same side as large corporations and are most likely to benefit from their ability to donate (1). Interest groups will be less-inclined to form pacts and may align themselves with wealthy corporations that can aid them with their goals and allow them to give freely (4). Because of the weakened parties as mentioned above, Congress may be put under increased pressure to remove the limits on party spending (1). Since there is currently a Democrat majority in Congress, I believe they might try to pass legislation to be used as a safety valve to overturn the Supreme Court's decision, as many Democrats are opposed to this ruling. I think this may improve the American elections because it could allow for more groups to get involved and get their message heard via ads and campaign donations. I think it also gives large corporations a larger say that may be more proportional to their impact and investment in society.
I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because, as Justice Stevens said, "We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment.”(4) If this is the case, then I feel the Court was correct in giving corporations the same rights as individuals have when it comes to campaign finance. It only seems logical to me. Also, this decision doesn't seem to be a huge deal. The restrictions on campaign finance seem modest and sensible (4). Also, corporations still must disclose their role in ads to the FEC which seems reasonable to me (2).
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
3.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
4.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?scp=5&sq=Supreme%20Court&st=cse
On Thursday, January 21st, the Supreme Court made a controversial decision to lift any sort of ban on the amount of money corporations can spend in ads for an election. The short term impacts of this change in financial contributions to the election will make it so that the spending in the next two to three elections will be wildly out of control in my opinion. Since it is something that is new and long awaited I believe that corporations will try to capitalize on it as much as possible while this is still the ruling. In the thought long term, I ultimately believe this will be overturned or there will be new bans in place. While I fully agree that groups deserve their right to free speech, if spending increases at the rate I think it will, the campaigns will become more malicious and eventually I believe our election system will become corrupt and people will be unable to focus at all about who is really best for president. Technology is already starting to ruin the election system and campaigning and this takes another step in that direction.
Overall I believe that the lawmakers will work to change this around especially after President Obama’s reaction calling the ruling “a victory for Wall Street, big banks, big oil and big insurance companies...” (1) I agree with President Obama in that any corporation with large amounts of money that want something changed or want to increase their power in the government will take this opportunity and rule the campaign world. I believe interest groups will fully use this to fuel their own agenda by latching on to companies as sponsors who can endorse candidates in elections. Parties will begin to take a stance on economic issues and more issues dealing with corporations when they are having their candidates campaign. By now political parties know who to focus their time and energy on and while those people are supposed to be the voters by a major amount, they tend to also look to those who will give them the most money for support as well. Candidates will interact more with business and hopefully over time, those who decide to run for the presidency will have less “baggage” or “dirty garbage” before they decide to run because they know that to get money and keep it, they need the trust of a corporation.
With our ever changing technology means, there is no say in where elections will go from here. Obviously this ruling was very close and very hard to make a decision on with a major emphasis on the 1st amendment and technology. (2) This decision will also drastically change state measures as well considering it overrules the precedent for them as well. (3) Overall, this is a huge change for the United States and while others will bask in the glory of their win, others will take more time to adjust to this decision.
I do agree with the Court’s decision that they have to allow corporations to spend as much as they want because it is their own thoughts and beliefs on how the elections should go. Personally I think that it is a horrible decision for our country, but the point of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and they were only doing there job in this case and there really is no other way the could/should have ruled. While I would love to see this overturned or changed in some way by laws in Congress, something drastic will have to happen first. If the next few elections go as I predict, the federal government will see how out of hand this is and either make an amendment to fully cover the nonsense of election season, or they will put rules and limits in place to cool things down and get back to the issues and what is best for the United States.
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012103582_pf.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee will certainly shake things up [1]. This unexpected restructuring of campaign finance law will lead to changes on the parts of everyone involved in the campaigns.
Candidates will likely try to make their policies more clear, so that they aren’t perverted by independent expenditures. If I may use Ms. Aby’s “Puppies vs. Kittens” example, Candidate Jones prefers Puppies to Kittens. He’d rather a pro-Jones independent expenditure declare that he HATES Kittens, as he doesn’t want to alienate the Kitten vote. Since CU v. FEC, the greater prevalence of the independent expenditures will mean that candidates will want to be sure that people know what they stand for.
Parties will be lobbying congress to pass laws either increasing their own power or limiting the power of corporations and unions to flood the airwaves with independent messages. After all, the parties are the ones running candidates for office, and they feel they ought to have most of the control over their candidates’ respective public images, as it ought to be.
Interest groups are, for the most part, aided by the Supreme Court’s decision, and they are unlikely to vehemently oppose it. However, it is my opinion that they will be very, very quiet about their support, as they know that it’s unpopular with the people. Those that stand to benefit the most will likely seek to not talk about the decision and rather to reap its benefits down the stretch. A silver lining is that their messages may actually be more direct [2]. Now that they don’t have to skirt around the rules with “issue messages,” they can simply say, “Don’t vote for Joe, and here’s why” [2].
Congress, made up of party members and periodic candidates, will not be willing to let the decision create the new status quo. At request of their parties, their constituents, and themselves, they will do much of what I described earlier: finding a way to again clamp down on interest groups, or finding a way to loosen their own restrictions. The decision-makers will do everything in their power not to have their decisions made for them by independent expenditures.
The decision, by itself, will hurt the U.S. political process [1]. As the laws stand today, candidates and parties are limited in their speech, while interest groups are not [2]. It’s easy to see how corporations could drown out the candidates, skewing facts and getting things wrong, leading to public image mayhem [1]. This is likely not to be the case, as Congress will probably be uncharacteristically quick in their ability to churn out laws circumventing the effects of the UC v. FEC ruling. Unfortunately, I expect them to bypass it by deregulating candidate/party spending, leading to an overall increase in money spent on advertising and whatnot. Either way, the process is worse off than it was before.
These things being said, I think I must agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, given a condition or two.
The first condition is that spending money on ads is political speech. If spending is not political speech, the case has no basis. If anything, laws ought to be stricter. But if spending is political speech, I don’t see how it can be limited with a number. That would produce limited free speech, which is obviously an oxymoron.
The second condition is that the First Amendment rights granted in the Bill of Rights apply to interest groups and corporations, as well as individuals. On the one hand, they are made up of people, all endowed with these rights. On the other, they are fundamentally different from “natural persons” and could be treated differently, perhaps [2].
If it were me, I would turn to precedent for both conditions and find that each condition I presented has been met. If these groups are entitled to free speech, and if spending money is political speech, then it is unconstitutional to limit their spending.
Sources
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
It’s ironic that at the same time we were learning about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act, a provision of it ceases to exist. I consider it a cruel trick the Supreme Court decided to play on all the current AP US Government and Politics students out there --- now we have to relearn material in time for the AP test.
Now corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want in candidate elections (1). Short term, they predict that there will be a huge increase in campaign contributions and spending in, if not in the midterm elections, the 2012 presidential elections. "It is gonna look an awful lot like the wild, wild West when the election season heats up more," says former Republican National Committee general counsel Ben Ginsberg (5). Long term, campaign reformers fear the complete abolishment of all campaign finance restrictions, leading to unlimited spending during campaign elections (1).
Obama criticizes it as a victory for Wall Street, big banks, big oil and big insurance companies (5). He’s calling for Congress to take steps to fix it. Unfortunately, this is probably going to be very hard to do. Parties always like getting more money for their campaigns, but it’s going to be difficult because they will now have to comply even more than ever before with the wishes of big corporations in order to keep the money flowing in. The parties may also be weakened because they are still limited by law in the money they can raise (5). Interest groups, on the other hand, might lose their voices in campaigns if they don’t have enough money to contribute. Is this still democracy?
I disagree with the Court’s ruling because I feel that now money will play too much of an interest in campaigns. Money talks. Now that corporations and unions can spend as much as they want, they will be the ones impacting candidates’ policies the most. Though I understand the argument of free speech, I believe restrictions should be put in place so big money doesn’t have the loudest voice. In my opinion, the Supreme Court should have ruled all or nothing: either get rid of all campaign finance restrictions, or keep them in place. Either way, we spend far too much money on political campaigns period.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
(5)http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
The decision the Supreme Court made a couple weeks ago is one of the most seismic and controversial rulings in a number of decades. In a 5-4 vote the court ruled that the Constitutional guarantee of free speech means corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money without restrictions from the FEC. This also means that labor unions will be free to spend without limits. This decision has many impacts in the short and long term, as it overturned the 2003 decision upholding provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act as well as a 1990 decision (1). In the short term this ruling will most definitely have an effect on the next round of elections in the Senate or House, and most certainly the next presidential election in 2012. Corporations will not hesitate to use this new weapon of power and will spend vast amounts of money pumping up the campaign of the candidate they believe will serve their best interests. For example, if a corporation is unhappy with a zoning decision or the actions of a local mayor, they now have the power to spend enough money to defeat them in the next election with their funds, thereby creating an exponential amount of influence on elections at all levels (2). In the long term, the unlimited spending of corporations will inevitably overshadow the contributions of individuals and parties, taking control of elections and decreasing the faith people have in their government (1). Judicial elections will also see a change as they become subject to corporate and union spending, and it has been speculated that the Republican party, perceived as advocates of free enterprise and business, will see benefits (2). Other long term effects may be the continued judicial activism of the Supreme Court, as some say the court is yearning for cases that have restrictions on free speech (3).
In response to this ruling candidates will have to work even harder to get their own voice and message heard above all of the interest groups and corporations that are trying to tear them down. With unlimited expenditures the ads on TV and radio will increase by ten fold, flooding the constituents with positive and negative ads 24-7 about each of the candidates. It is most likely some candidates will completely lose their voice, as they do not have the resources to compete with the multimillion dollar corporations that can spend as much money as they please to basically buy their government officials. I believe this is going to make our system more corrupt, as the larger sums of money will make candidates even more indebted to the corporations, who will therefore control even more of the government and prevent fair democracy. Parties will also be weakened, as they still have restrictions regarding their contributions and what they can accept from individuals (2). Also, since they will no longer be the primary beneficiary to the candidate their agenda slips lower on the priority lists of candidates. Interest groups will proliferate even more, flooding the broadcast media with ads and commercials, as stated before. Their new heightened influence will not go unused, and groups will exploit it to the best of their efforts to achieve their specific goals. In response to this Congress can attempt to pass new laws and restrictions that would attempt to confine this new ruling, though all of these attempts would take time (1). However, it is almost a certainty that they will try to overturn this decision, as it effects not only their own elections but has so far been demonstrated to be extremely unpopular among the majority of the general public.
Some fanatics of campaign finance being unlimited claim that the ruling will only make ads more honest, as they will cut the message of calling in to your representatives and simply tell you to go vote. These fanatics also argue that corporations are relieved to finally be able to donate money to a number of campaigns without worrying about legality issues and overspending (4). Honestly though, I think this is a load of crap. Our elections and politics in general can only go downhill from here, and I believe elitists have the correct opinion on this issue. Let’s face it: money is results in today’s politics, there’s no question about it. Therefore, the people that donate the most money to a candidate are most likely to get their desired results, as candidates will want to please them in order to secure further donations in the future. This is corrupting the whole sense of democracy, as corporations are completely different than ordinary people and should not be treated in the same sense. Corporations are run by the elite members of our country who are only interested in saving their own butts and making even more money than they already have. Now that these people can go crazy and donate millions or billions if they desire, their influence on campaigns will skyrocket, thereby making elections somewhat useless. The point is they will run the country, as no ordinary candidate will be able to compete with that vast amount of money.
I am personally disgusted with this decision, and have a huge disappointment in the Supreme Court. Politics are already dirty enough in today’s world with back door deals and money contributions, and now to allow all of this to take place legally is a tragedy. I don’t know what kind of stupid you have to be to think that by allowing the multimillion and billion dollar corporations to donate money to campaigns, which are based on donations, promotes democracy in the least bit. Not only will the voices of the people be drowned out, but the candidates themselves will not be able to get their own message across! I think the decision is a very poor reflection of this country, and does not represent what we stand for. Instead of opening the floodgates to further political corruption and degradation, the Supreme Court should have upheld their precedents and maintained the restrictions on campaign finance. Although no result is certain right now, America can be assured that this will have a tremendous impact on the elections and politics in the future.
1.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
2.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
3.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
4.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
The recent decision on campaign finance made it so that campaign donations are no longer limited for corporations. I think in the short term though many are against the ruling, it will be a big part of upcoming elections, especially the upcoming midterm elections. As Ben Ginsberg say, “They will now be able to spend oodles squared” (1). I think this will greatly increase the amount of money that is spent on elections because there is no limit to corporations and they will have a greater impact on elections than they have in the past. Another short term impact of this decision is the change in campaign ads. The ads will now say “go vote” rather than “call him” (2). I think this could help people to see more sides of the candidates and how they stand on certain issues. As for long term impacts of this ruling, I think the amount of influence that corporations will gain will hurt the American people. President Obama called it a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power everyday in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans (3). I think that Obama’s thought on the decision could happen. With so many huge corporations donating all this money to candidates, then the candidates are more likely to tend to the corporations and return favors, rather than helping the people. Also in the long run, I think many people, will fight the ruling and try to find ways to limit the donations corporations give. After hearing of the ruling President Obama said that along with congressional leaders from both parties, he will develop a forceful response (4). Others are worried this decision will weaken parties because they are still limited to how much money they can raise (1). This could also lead to removing limits on party spending as well.
I disagree with this ruling because I think it will give too much influence to large corporations. While it is important to get corporations to back you as a candidate, I think they should still have a limit on how much they can contribute. I do think it is important for everyone, including corporations to be able to express their opinion about a candidate but I don’t think that their opinion should be more influential because they can spend more money expressing their beliefs. I also think corporations can use this to convince candidates to help them out as well. While individuals can only contribute so much, corporations can donate as much as they want, making candidates want to win over the corporation rather than the people. I think the courts should have at least given corporations a limit to their contributions. This way they can still support candidates and be influential, but they would not overshadow the American people.
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
The new U.S. Supreme Court decision in *Citizens United vs. Federal Election commission* will essentially allow new corporations to use their treasuries to influence elections. Already, the Senate and other groups are protesting this decision and the impact it will have on upcoming elections. The Senate Rules Committee held a hearing today, and many Democratic senators indicated they would like to see a change in the law counteracting the ruling (1). Senator Russ Feingold, whose own campaign finance decision was weakened by this ruling, testified that the Court "in effect produced a Frankenstein, the people created corporations, but the Court has denied the people the power
to prevent corporations from dominating the political system" (1). John Kerry also spoke, stating that we should move towards a constitutional amendment that would make it clear to corporations they do not have the same power as individuals. I think this Supreme Court decision will hurt the election process and the way our democratic country is run. The short term impacts have already been seen. Many Americans do not agree with the decision, as well as those in the government. In the long run, with this
decision, the corporate elite will run the country even more. In
today's campaigns, money is a great influence on which candidates make it in the race or into office. You can't even run for president without making a
decent amount of money anymore. Corporations will have too much power because of this decision, and it will negatively impact the election process.
I obviously disagree with the Court's ruling. By looking at history, it is easy to see the fear that goes along with corporations gaining too much power. Teddy Roosevelt even said that "All contributions by
corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law" (2). There is a fear that this big money will be able
to buy votes and influence elections, a fear I think is rightly justified. Many, in response, have said that it would nice if no one had a disproportionate share of influence, but it isn't something that the government can control (2). They state that the markets should sort out that problem. I fear that the gap between the rich and the poor, which is already
large, will spread even more with this new decision. If corporate influence grows, as it undoubtedly will with this ruling, the power of the little people will be diminished. Who will even vote anymore if they feel that
their voice will not be heard? Voter turnout has been declining throughout the past century, and I think this decision will push turnout rates to abysmal lows.
The one positive thing that has come out of this ruling is the idea that corporations will have to put their names on any ads or money they give, allowing the American people to see who exactly is promoting or demeaning the candidates. This is only one small positive, though. As Fred Wertheimer said, "With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy" (3).
(1)
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/02/citizens-united-rumblings-democrats-plot-to-offset-supreme-court-ruling/
(2)
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/what-is-the-first-amendment-for/?hp
(3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
I am definately indifferent to this decision. There are clearly positives and megatives to this ruling. On one hand I believe that the
previous
conditions were pointless. It's obvious that interest groups were importuning people to vote a certain way. Just because groups were limited to a certain category of speech doesn't mean they can't convey the same message. I honestly think that the court upheld free speech but compromise the financial integrity of campaigns. I would like to see a political election in which people with reasonable assets can rely on others with average financial status for funds. If we allow the richest to contribute inordinate sums then we will undoubtedly see an increased political reliance on the miniscule rich. If there was any argument for the elite theory this is it. Overall though it comes down to people being free to speak out however they can. After all, if the rich have money then the poor have numbers.
The recent Supreme Court decision will have a drastic effect on future campaigns and elections. I think the biggest impact is that major corporations are going to have a much, much larger effect on fundraising as well as the outcome of many elections (1). In my opinion, it will favor the Republicans far more than it will favor the Democrats, because the big businesses tend to fall on the right side of the political spectrum (2). Another impact that this decision will have is that interest groups will be able to spend as much as they possibly can on getting a candidate elected. This will mean even more negative advertisement, as well as the interest groups having more say in whom to vote for than the candidates themselves (3). Candidates are going to have to by much clearer on where they stand politically, because with so much interest group advertisement their message could get lost along the way (3). I think Congress is going to have a response to this ruling, although it’s going to be very difficult to undermine what the court believes to be freedom of speech.
In all honesty, I’m disgusted by this ruling. It so blatantly favors one side of the political spectrum that I’m astonished that there hasn’t been more backlash against it. The big corporations are basically in the pocket of the Republican party, and Obama said it best by stating “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans,” (2) As if the big oil companies and major corporations didn’t have enough power already, now they’re going to be able to spend as much money as they want? I think this decision has the ability to make what is already an overly long and arduous campaign system in American even worse. I also believe that the judges who voted in favor of this decision are far overstepping their boundaries. Judicial activism is just when a certain group of people are being discriminated against, but to go out on a limb like they are goes against everything the court stands for. The major companies have such an unequal amount of wealth and resources that in order to protect in integrity of our elections, there must be some limitations on what they can and cannot do. To overturn more that a century’s worth of precedents regarding campaign finance is utterly ridiculous, and should be overruled in the near future. The first amendment protects the right to free speech, but saying that it also extends to such substantially wealthy businesses is outrageous. The court should have gone with many of the other precedents (including the decision upholding the McCain-Feingold act just six years ago) and ruled against this case. The implications could make the campaign system far worse than it is now.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482.html
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866.html
(3) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/pl_nm/us_usa_court_politics
“With a stroke of the pen, five justices wiped out a century of American history devoted to preventing corporate corruption of our democracy,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 (1). On January 21, 2010, the rulebook for campaign finance was completely re-written. In a 5 to 4 decision, the majority cast its ruling as a spirited defense of the First Amendment, concluding that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech. Since 1947, corporations have been banned from using their profits to endorse or oppose political candidates (1). Now, however, that ban is considered unconstitutional.
Some of the short-term implications from this decision will be shown within the upcoming 2010 mid term elections. With large companies now being able to uphold or oppose political candidates, the influence of groups is bound to increase. For example, the United States Chamber of Commerce is now able to spend unlimited amounts of money explicitly on ads that attack candidates (1). With this new influence, it will be interesting to see if the extra money will make a difference in voting results. Long-term results will be seen within a major increase in corporation spending. With the ability to financially support candidates, with no spending limit, companies are bound to spend more than they have in the past. For the future, corporations will need to find space in their budget for the ability to support or oppose candidates financially.
I agree with the court’s ruling up to a certain extent. I do agree with the fact that corporations have the right under the constitution to endorse candidates through political speech. If individuals can support candidates, than why can’t companies? However, I do believe that the recent increase in negative ad campaigns will only continue to get worse. Now that corporations now have unlimited resources, there will be a drastic increase in negativity, and that this will only harm the election process.
Work Cited:
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.htm
Repercussions of this decision will be felt, according to many political analysts. Law professor and political scientist at Columbia University, Nathaniel Persily, told the press that this decision “…[is] the most major Supreme Court decision in the area of campaign finance in decades – and a significant First Amendment decision” [3]. Peter Overby of NPR speculates that this new decision is likely to “…be felt in judicial elections at the state level” [3]. Even more ominously, Overby predicts: “We don’t know its practical impact yet, and I don’t think it’s the last word from the Court” [3].
I do not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I do not regard corporations as individuals. I would argue that corporations are made up of individuals and that those individuals are entitled to protection of their rights. The Constitution protects the freedom to assemble but does not directly protect the assembly. I believe it is up to the Supreme Court to decide how far that protection extends. Precedent drew a fairly distinct line between “individuals” and “corporations” or “groups.” Now, I would argue that that line is extremely faint if existent at all. I would have expected the Court to take into account the implications of its rulings – I’d imagine that many amicus curiae briefs were filed enumerating the implications of ending the McCain-Feingold Act. Somewhere along those lines, I’d imagine the question of equality would emerge: how can any candidate without millions of dollars behind him or her even dream of competing for an elected office? I am rather surprised that these briefs didn’t have more merit.
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103320.html
2) http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/21/supreme-court-drop-kicks-mccainfeingold-scores-victory-for-1st-amendment/
3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666
4) http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-100121-campaign-finance,0,4497793.story
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home