Citizens United Corruption Essay

The First Amendment has been one of the most controversial issues surrounding the Constitutions since its ratification in 1787. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Many people disagree on the extent of power the First Amendment actually has on the right to free speech. One of the most controversial issues surrounding the First Amendment is how much influence a company can have over elections and

Each of these committees would donate less than $100; therefore, avoiding the need to report the donation (Fuller). In the 1930s two acts were passed, the Public Utilities Holding Act in 1935 and the Hatch Act in 1939. The former of the two prohibits utility companies from making contributions in federal campaigns, while the latter bans most federal employees from making contributions to a candidate in national elections and from participating in political campaigns (Rowan). The Smith Connelly Act was passed in 1943, which bans labor unions from making direct contributions to federal campaigns. However, unions create political action committees, or PACs, to make campaign contributions. The Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947. This Act bans corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in federal political campaigns (Rowan).

In this Supreme Court 5-4 decision, the Court states that the First Amendment protects corporate and union funding of independent political broadcasts in elections. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” Or as the Court says, the

Citizens United is an organization that wants to restore citizen control of the United States government. They want to restore the America back to a free nation that has a limited government. The way that they achieve this is to produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films. In 2009, Citizen United sued the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United stated that it was illegal to limit a corporation from spending its treasury money to support or attack candidates in presidential elections. This led to outside groups such as the Super PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money. Super PACs are an independent political action committee. They could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, and other individuals.

The issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush’s response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that money is

According to Nick Bentley, who wrote “What is Citizens United?| An Introduction”, the Political Action Committee, Citizens United, was coined in 1988 by Floyd Brown, a political consultant from Washington. Floyd was funded by the Koch brothers who owned the second largest privately owned company. This group was formed to primarily promote corporate interests, socially conservative causes, and candidates who advance their goals. The group became more popular to the public when it sued the Federal Election Commission, which over saw campaign finances and created election rules,

In other words, Super PACs gives a voice to people with money. All corporations that have money to give, are giving millions and millions of dollars to the candidates across the board. Independent voters don't have that money to donate, so their

The Supreme Court also sited in that same ruling that, “In a free society by our Constitution, it is not the government, but the people-individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees-who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign” (Keena 6). While it may be a violation of freedom of speech to limit television ads, many of today’s candidates have made a mockery of the existing legislature regarding campaign financing. Ex-president Bill Clinton bent the rules and laws more than possibly any elected official ever, and certainly farther than anyone since Richard Nixon. Thad Cochran, a veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, stated, “Clinton used his own party and had it operated out of the campaign office, which was the White House, to coordinate expenditures by the Democratic Party and his election campaign in an unlimited amount, using soft money to pay for the ads, with his own chief-of-staff making the decisions about the kind of advertising, and Clinton himself was involved in writing some of the ads that were actually run by the Democratic Party using soft money” (Williams 10). No elected official had ever gone so far as to run soft money ads out of his own office, let alone rewrite the ads himself. It is cases such as this one that are prime examples for why there is such a need for new laws to govern campaign financing.

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

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a 2010 Supreme Court case concerning the regulation of campaign contributions by corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations. The case is known for its holding that campaign spending by such groups is protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech.

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

Years later, The Tillman Act of 1907 was passed, outlawing the financial backing of businesses to national political campaigns (“CRS Annotated Constitution”). This ban stood for approximately 70 years until the 1978 Supreme Court decision which allowed “corporations to have a First Amendment right to spend money on state ballot initiatives” (Totenberg 2014). Again, that held for a few decades until the 2010 Citizens United case which guaranteed First Amendment full rights to spend as they saw fit because money is the form of speech

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.

“There was much controversy surrounding this bill; President Bush himself had concerns about the constitutionality of portions of this legislation. The act eliminated soft money donations, but doubled the amount of direct donations that are allowed (debate).” In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was unconstitutional. With the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court found that the act was unconstitutional because corporations' and union's rights under the First Amendment were being

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