In 2010, a court case was brought forth to the Supreme Court, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. The case dealt with corporations and unions spending on political ads and other political tools, in order to attempt to elect or defeat individual potential politicians (Dunbar). The Supreme Court ultimately came to a 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United (Dunbar). This ruling basically gave the go-ahead to giant unions and corporations to fund, whichever politician will benefit their specific cause the most. The unlimited ability to spend is corrupting politicians, and creating a congress that works in the best interests of the lobbyist’s that fund certain political movements. In a democracy, it is the people that vote for officials
…show more content…
Before the ruling, there was a limited amount of money an individual could donate to a politicians, political action committee, or PAC. Before 2010, corporations and unions were not allowed to donate money to political campaigns. However, following the 2010 court case, these restrictions were stripped away by the Supreme Court ruling. A new form of the politician’s political action committee was born, known as the Super PAC. The amount of funds actually taken in by these Super PACs in order to support or oppose political candidates is staggering. 2012 was the first presidential election following the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. "In the 2012 presidential election a total of 266 super PACs have spent $546.5 million—78% of which has been spent opposing candidates"(LA Times). $290 million dollars alone were spent opposing the campaign of president Obama, who ended up winning the election, therefore $290 million dollars which could have been used to fund more meaningful campaigns that benefit the community, were instead wasted (LA Times). The logic behind the spending of negative advertising directed at attacking certain politicians is absurd. As stated before, 78% of spending is used to oppose candidates, instead of used to support that actual candidate that is being funded. In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney actually spent $233 million dollars …show more content…
Followed by Ted Cruz receive over $60 million in funding from outside money. As of 2016, there are 2,281 super PACs and have raised $707 million dollars (OpenSecret). The rapid increase in the amount of outside spending by super PACs is bad news for voting Americans. More and more corporations are joining the political feeding frenzy created by the Supreme Court ruling in 2010. The steady growth in the number of lobbyists means more and more influence of the corporate agenda over politicians, who were put in the positions that they are in to represent the middle-class majority, not corporate billionaires. According to the Supreme Court corporations and unions are protected under the first amendment, and should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money for the indirect political funding of campaigns. The ruling stated that because the funds were not being spent in coordination with the campaign, they do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption (Dunbar). How is it that a corporation that spends $30 million in order to elect a senator or deter the election of an opposing senator is not seen as corruption? The Supreme Court alleges that the super PACs funding is not coordinated with the campaign, however they are. Funding is directly used for bashing and supportive
Before the ruling, there was a limited amount of money an individual could donate to a politicians, political action committee, or PAC. Before 2010, corporations and unions were not allowed to donate money to political campaigns. However, following the 2010 court case, these restrictions were stripped away by the Supreme Court ruling. A new form of the politician’s political action committee was born, known as the Super PAC. The amount of funds actually taken in by these Super PACs in order to support or oppose political candidates is staggering. 2012 was the first presidential election following the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. "In the 2012 presidential election a total of 266 super PACs have spent $546.5 million—78% of which has been spent opposing candidates"(LA Times). $290 million dollars alone were spent opposing the campaign of president Obama, who ended up winning the election, therefore $290 million dollars which could have been used to fund more meaningful campaigns that benefit the community, were instead wasted (LA Times). The logic behind the spending of negative advertising directed at attacking certain politicians is absurd. As stated before, 78% of spending is used to oppose candidates, instead of used to support that actual candidate that is being funded. In the 2012 election, Mitt Romney actually spent $233 million dollars …show more content…
Followed by Ted Cruz receive over $60 million in funding from outside money. As of 2016, there are 2,281 super PACs and have raised $707 million dollars (OpenSecret). The rapid increase in the amount of outside spending by super PACs is bad news for voting Americans. More and more corporations are joining the political feeding frenzy created by the Supreme Court ruling in 2010. The steady growth in the number of lobbyists means more and more influence of the corporate agenda over politicians, who were put in the positions that they are in to represent the middle-class majority, not corporate billionaires. According to the Supreme Court corporations and unions are protected under the first amendment, and should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money for the indirect political funding of campaigns. The ruling stated that because the funds were not being spent in coordination with the campaign, they do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption (Dunbar). How is it that a corporation that spends $30 million in order to elect a senator or deter the election of an opposing senator is not seen as corruption? The Supreme Court alleges that the super PACs funding is not coordinated with the campaign, however they are. Funding is directly used for bashing and supportive