Mar
5
Blog Post#5: Citizen’s United
March 5, 2015 | Leave a Comment
The New Yorker Article gave insight, historical details, and background surrounding the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It was interesting to see that the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, a law created so that politicians would have a more equal playing field, was overturned and created lots of controversy. Even with the McCain-Feingold law or not, there are still problems prevalent such as the issue of power of money in politics.
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law had good intentions to protect political candidates from being attacked by corporations and large companies. People’s opinions are easily influenced by social media, TV ads, movies, and other factors. Therefore, even without any broadcast ads, there are other mediums that can be used to influence the majority’s opinion. I agree with most of what the New Yorker article is stating. The McCain-Feingold law proves very ineffective in that it violates free speech and in trying to level the playing field.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. states, “Governments could never take steps to equalize opportunities for candidates in electoral contests.” I agree with this since there are so many factors and outlets in a political campaign that it’s hard to find equal footing. Roberts also states that campaign is an important form of speech; therefore, we shouldn’t inhibit our rights to express free speech. What caught my eye however, was the idea that “money is speech.” This is very evident today in our society where money runs the world.
The involvement of money in politics is growing with each election. Politicians spend tons of money advertising their campaign, and the more money you spend, the better the exposure. This money is spent on posters, ads, free pens/pins, and research and data collection. I don’t follow politics very closely and it would take a lot of exposure and media for me to discover the current news story. However, what about the people that don’t have money to throw at these things? There should more opportunities and platforms (free) for campaigns to reach larger audiences.
There are many people who aren’t involved or interested in politics, and that’s mostly the poor. They don’t have the time to care about these miscellaneous things. How would things be different if majority or most of America participated and got involved with politics and worldly issues? Elections shouldn’t be focused on throwing money at a campaign but on getting people more involved and educated.
-JanYing He
