Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission is a court case in which United States Supreme Court in the year 2010 decided on a 5-4 basis the legislation that prohibited the use of treasury funds by corporations and unions generally for the independence of the electoral process communication systems referred political advertising infringed the protection of freedom of speech by the First Amendment. In doing so, Section 203 was invalidated by the court in the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act for the authors Sen. John McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold, and Section 441(b) in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that was changed in 1971. The court continued to reverse Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) in the whole or the part of the previous Supreme Court rulings.

Immediately viewed as a significant history, the resulting ruling becomes a controversy outside the case. Some hailed it as a way to resound the victory of free speech with others criticizing it as an over-reaching attempt to rewrite a campaign finance law. Among the concerns raised by President Barack Obama and commented in his State of the Union address the House of Representatives and later the decision would open the doors for spending by special interests without the restrictions in our elections. One of the Supreme Court judges in the attendance breaching decorum would have been offended by the accusation by mouthing phrases that are not real. Note that the case arose in the year 2003 when the Citizens United created a conservative non-profit organization and thus published a report critical of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was a 2008 Democratic nomination for the president of the United States (Toobin, 2012). The Citizens United wished there to be a distribution of the fil through a video that was on-demand servicing a cable television subscribing within few days before there is a beginning of the 2008 Democratic primary elections advertising the film in three specially made TV commercials. It requested declaratory and other injunctive relief, claiming that the law was unconstitutional and that this extended to Hillary, having been concerned about the potential civil and criminal penalties for the violation of the law. Notes that the BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and the reporting of requirements became unconstitutional as it was applied to the Hillary and the ads.

The District Court carried out a denial of the Citizens United, which was an initial ruling that granted the appellee Federal Election Commission (FEC) a summary for the verdict. It is noted that the question of whether the violated law applied to Hillary could not have been addressed on other grounds without wiping out any political discourse, this must also take into account the ongoing effect of the repression of Austin’s voice. The issue of big money in politics has turned into a burning question to many Americans, though most of them are quite over the authority of more significant donors is increasing in many American parties. The challenge is now to ensure that action follows anger so that the citizens can show that there is a solution to this big problem in the American political system. The next president and Congress should ensure that they make reforms on the issues concerning the campaign finance system.

Over the years, the American political system has needed large sums of money. Previous Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United destroyed some of the rules and regulations which controlled the flow of funds in politics. This decision lead to the establishment of super PACs, which are responsible for receiving unlimited contributions from unions, corporations, and other groups (Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 2010). In the elections cycles that followed Citizens United, the balance of power has concentrated towards outside spending groups such as super PACs who contribute significant amounts of money for political advertisement and influencing voters. In the first half of 2015, only 158 families donated more than half of the funds provided for the presidential campaign. In the 2014 midterm elections, around 100 individuals spent almost the same amount of money contributed by all the 4.75 million small donors combined. The super PACs did not exist before the Citizen United. However, after the ruling, the PACs were established, and they emerged as the most powerful vehicles for campaign funding as they spend more than $1 billion during election cycles.

The domination of super PACs threatens American democracy and good governance. Candidates who lack access to the super PACs and other donors always experience barriers for competing in national and state contests. The Supreme Court’s decision depended on faulty judgment concerning independent expenditures. The Supreme Court believed that direct spending could lead to corruption because a candidate will have the authority to spend donations as they wish. However, outside spending cannot lead to corruption because a candidate has no control over how donations are spent. This decision ignored the fact that too much spending on a single candidate by PACs and large organizations can buy a lot of political influence when the candidate wins the election. Many big donors believe that their donations have the power to buy political influence. Outside spending shot up to more than $ 1 billion in 2012, and this included $ 400 million contributed from dark money groups who are not willing to reveal their donors.

Many corporations fund campaigns to influence policy. Therefore, for many organized interest groups spending on elections is just a training session, and the main game starts when the elected officials enter the office. The main goals of the corporations are to protect and increase their market advantage. Corporations in the financial industry lobby to eliminate the New Deal-era policies, which decreased industry profits, and the oil and gas industry use their authority in Washington to guard treasured land leases through which they can exploit public resources. Many firms contribute the campaign money not only to influence the elected officials to create and implement direct subsidies and weak regulation but also to protect themselves from experiencing pesky challenges to profits. Every group comes with their agenda, and they put their money where they are likely to get high returns in exchange for their contributions. Some groups support no taxes while others support lower taxes; some support no regulations while others support favorable laws.

Many rich people and large organizations invest in politics, intending to improve the economic position. Many candidates ask for donations from the PACs and other donors because the money helps them win elections and secure their power. Efforts intended to curb the influence of more giant corporations, and wealthy individuals in the political system need to address both the demand and supply of the federal funds. Many reforms focus on the amount of the federal money, and they ignore the fact that as long as a candidate needs money for their campaigns, large organizations and wealthy people will be willing to provide the money for campaigns. Voluntary public financing will always be delicate in a system where some candidates can benefit from unlimited spending. The supply of the federal cash may be a long-term challenge, but demand for the money can be easily reduced. For the case of lobbying:

Agency officials and members of Congress depend on lobbyists because they offer accurate political information and policy expertise. Therefore, the number and the technological advancements of the congressional staff and sources of unbiased information should be increased so that they may provide factual information to the members of Congress and other policymakers. It will reduce the dependence on the lobbyists, and policymakers will have the opportunity to make independent decisions. Many politicians also need federal money because it plays an essential role in their campaigns. If the importance of advertising can be reduced, the need for political money can be significantly reduced.

The Citizen United created a big from in the American political system. In the current political system, big corporations and wealthy individuals have the freedom of spending an unlimited amount of money on a candidate through the PACs. These large corporations and wealthy people are always interested in policymaking. Citizen United created a system whereby market winners write the rules, and they ignore the priorities of Americans and other organizations. This system weakens the public trust in government, it creates public skepticism, and it makes the economy work less in favor of individuals and organizations without the ability to invest in politics.