Mar
5
Citizens United – Josh Solomowitz
March 5, 2015 | Leave a Comment
The ACLU takes provides an interesting perspective on the Citizens United case. They don’t support anything that will limit the 1st Amendment, even if it makes the political machine completely one sided. This sounds exactly like Kennedy’s logic on why he supported Citizens United.
I had never read this much detail on a Supreme Court case before – I didn’t consider all of the different interactions that went on during one case. It’s funny to me that Citizen’s United wasn’t even supposed to come close to winning in the beginning. Not a shot. It was turned down by every single court before it finally landed on the lap of the “big dog,” the good ol’ Supreme Court. And it all came down to that one uttered sentence by Olson, followed by the immediate exchange of lines following it. And with that, Citizens United became a landmark case.
This was brought about by a misspoken sentence – if Stewart had only rephrased what he said about the government having the right to “ban books,” none of this would have come about. Even the highest officials in our government are humans and make mistakes. Of course discussions could sway in either direction, depending on the personal preference or even mood of the judges. And just like that, this case was blown up and headed in favor of Citizens United. America does not ban books – that conflicts with our 1st and most held-dear amendment.
The reading also mentions how money is used in our society – as a form of communication. Renting halls for speeches, purchasing ads, and other means get the campaign agenda out to US citizens, the ultimate deciders of the vote. Money has a ton of pull in our elections. Our politicians receive funding from individuals or organizations and are indebted to them, willing to take on a new agenda just for them. Politicians are much more likely to listen to the rich more than the poor, leaving the lower class on the sidelines watch as the rich rule the country.
Since corporations are considered individuals and protected under the 1st amendment, there is no denying them the right to put political items on television for the first 30-day period before the campaign – it honestly is censorship. This was definitely a tricky case to understand, as both sides had their merits. I believe that the government has no right to censor political messages, regardless of how close the start of the campaign is.
But, like Obama made in his State of the Union address six days after the decision, I fear of foreign investment in American elections. While there are restrictions in place with corporations and individuals giving money to campaigns directly, all one needs is a PAC (or even a Super PAC). Corporations that are held to the same degree as American citizens, no matter the identity, and may become susceptible to foreigners. And money does go a long way, especially in the political machine.
Will foreign investments be the prime source of funding for future campaigns? As it looks at the moment, no. But all it takes is a few lobbyers and a conservative Supreme Court justice to make that happen. It could be up to something as dumb as the mood the judge may be in on that day. And when that does happen, I don’t want to be here to see the after-effects.
