Mar
2
Class 11 – Citizens United – Mohd Sakib
March 2, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Campaign financing has recently taken a front seat in political and social debates, as both the public and government have been questioning how money can influence politics. The issue of how corporations and super-PACs can affect everything from polls, to campaigns to even possibly swaying election results through monetary contributions has drawn much concern from voters and unions. In response to such concerns, various regulators have proposed laws to mitigate these streams of money that have ended up ballooning to millions and billions of campaign dollars. But the main debacle that the regulators face is whether or not corporations and unions are entitled to First Amendment rights. In the recent Citizens United case, the Supreme Court decided “corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government.”
The ACLU article “THE ACLU AND CITIZENS UNITED” provides an interesting argument on whether or not this decision was justified, as it sides against any restriction of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. This organization takes a sort of on the fence approach to addressing regulations and laws on campaign finance. The ACLU is against these regulations if they are solely based banning the political speech of corporations, as they are legal entities. However, the ACLU does agree that political campaigns contributions can sometimes skew election results and who runs for office as well as who is elected. They do make an idealistic solution where there is a system created to equitably generate public finance for a more level playing field.
In my opinion, even though corporations are in fact legal entities (legally a person), and should be protected under the First Amendment, there still should be some kind of regulations in place that disallow these companies to contribute ridiculously and overpowering sums of money. I consider “corporations and unions [to be] legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues” since they play a significant role in shaping public policy through their business activities. At the other side of the coin however, since they do interact with the public debate and politics so heavily, they should be monitored as much as politicians and parties are during election seasons.
It is very troubling to see billions of dollars essentially wasted just to get someone elected. Moreover, the sheer magnitude of this financing can definitely sway results and opinions that are not representative of the public. How then, is this true democracy, when a few entities make the decisions and results that should be based on a large majority. The “Money Unlimited” article from The New Yorker traces back how the Supreme Court has both sided with or fought back corporations and money in politics. During the Gilded Age for example, corporations had more political power as, for the first time were considered to have constitutional rights. During the Progressive Era however, the activist and more progressive government tried to combat corporations’ and unions’ impact on politics through money. This historical perspective on campaign and political finance was very interesting to read because I haven’t thought about those periods in that manner.
The US Supreme Court, political parties, our government along with corporations, unions, super-PACs and the like need to work cohesively in order to make sure that proper laws are in place in order to do what is best for the general public. With the 2016 presidential election underway, it is ridiculous to see the amount of donations and public financing that has already been generated for the respective political parties. The billions of dollars that are going to those candidates that best represent the interests of these corporations and unions, can instead be spent for much more important social issues. Indeed it can be difficult to actually understand how these monetary contributions can directly affect election results and the selection of who actually gets to run. But there must be more analysis and actual reform in place in order for their to be a true, and more equitable democratic election process.
