Political corruption is always brought up during election season and seemingly everyone has their own fix. Corruption today can be quickly discovered if one just follows the trail of dark money. Funds given to a politician from a corporation, whether in a campaign or as lobbying, is referred to as dark money by liberal politicians. Citizens United V. FEC was a supreme court case which ruled that money is speech and thus corporations can give endless sums of money to politicians under their constitutional protection of free speech. Liberal politicians often call these funds dark money because the funds are used to promote corporate interest, not the interest of the people. The ruling fundamentally changed the face of politics by hurting the
…show more content…
Many who support the Citizens United V. FEC ruling will say that the ruling did very little to change what was already there, aside from lifting the cap on donations. While the latter half of their argument is true the former half could not be more misleading. The Citizens United V. FEC court case set a precedent for political corruption and must be overturned to prevent dark money from controlling our government. Citizens United is a political action group founded in 1988 with funding from major industrialists. The goal of Citizens United is to “…reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security…” (Who We Are, CitizensUnited.org). The group traditionally produces a variety of short conservative films and documentaries; it wasn’t until they wished to air anti-candidate ads that they found themselves in the supreme court. Citizens United V. FEC was a supreme court case that ended in a 5-4 court ruling where the majority argued that it was unconstitutional for the Federal Election Commission to place restrictions on political spending by corporations. For nearly a century prior the government …show more content…
Citizens United’s goal on paper is to support the constitution and restore the power of the government to the people, however, it actually represents the political agendas of corporate America and squashes the little man. Through a supreme court case, Citizens United v. FEC, it was decided that money is the equivalent of speech and obstructing spending was obstruction free speech. It can be said that corporations should not be protected by the first amendment, but the court also ruled that corporations were people and have the same constitutional protections as natural people. The ruling opened the floodgates for extraneous spending that influences not only the outcomes of political campaigns but influences policy itself. Citizens United influences policies by acting as a political action committee on the election side of politics but then acts as a special interest group for corporate America on the congressional side of politics. Support for the ruling comes from the far right of the political spectrum under the premises that it restores the first amendment and will not obstruct shareholders opinions on corporate political activity. The first amendment shouldn’t be applied to corporations because they are not natural people and do not deserve the same protection as natural people. Shareholders are also suppressed in corporate political
Many who support the Citizens United V. FEC ruling will say that the ruling did very little to change what was already there, aside from lifting the cap on donations. While the latter half of their argument is true the former half could not be more misleading. The Citizens United V. FEC court case set a precedent for political corruption and must be overturned to prevent dark money from controlling our government. Citizens United is a political action group founded in 1988 with funding from major industrialists. The goal of Citizens United is to “…reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security…” (Who We Are, CitizensUnited.org). The group traditionally produces a variety of short conservative films and documentaries; it wasn’t until they wished to air anti-candidate ads that they found themselves in the supreme court. Citizens United V. FEC was a supreme court case that ended in a 5-4 court ruling where the majority argued that it was unconstitutional for the Federal Election Commission to place restrictions on political spending by corporations. For nearly a century prior the government …show more content…
Citizens United’s goal on paper is to support the constitution and restore the power of the government to the people, however, it actually represents the political agendas of corporate America and squashes the little man. Through a supreme court case, Citizens United v. FEC, it was decided that money is the equivalent of speech and obstructing spending was obstruction free speech. It can be said that corporations should not be protected by the first amendment, but the court also ruled that corporations were people and have the same constitutional protections as natural people. The ruling opened the floodgates for extraneous spending that influences not only the outcomes of political campaigns but influences policy itself. Citizens United influences policies by acting as a political action committee on the election side of politics but then acts as a special interest group for corporate America on the congressional side of politics. Support for the ruling comes from the far right of the political spectrum under the premises that it restores the first amendment and will not obstruct shareholders opinions on corporate political activity. The first amendment shouldn’t be applied to corporations because they are not natural people and do not deserve the same protection as natural people. Shareholders are also suppressed in corporate political