In January 2010, the United States Supreme Court Citizens United ruling struck down the ban on limiting corporate and union contributions and financing of elections. This ruling unleashed a wave of unlimited spending on political ads and other strategic to support candidates and/or damage the image of opposition candidates. The court decision was divided in a 5-4 vote. Essentially, this decision made it permissible for corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums of money on efforts to sway people’s decisions on voting for or against a specific candidate or number of candidates. Although the Citizens United ruling still prohibits unions and corporations to contribute directly to federal political candidates, these groups can easily by-pass
…show more content…
One option includes a Constitutional Amendment declaring that corporations are not the same as individuals, and money in politics is not the same as free speeach. However, this option requires two-thirds of congress (in both chambers) to agree and an additional three-fourths majority of legislators from the states. While this option seems unrealistic, it has been done before in the instances of enacting prohibition in 1919, then overturning prohibition later in 1933. Another example of this process was as recent as 1971, when congress amended the constitution to lower the legal voting age to 18 years old. All that said, while it’s possible for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, due to the deeply divided political climate in Congress, it would be highly unlikely to occur, at least during the current …show more content…
Shortly after the Citizens United ruling, a Democratic congressman introduced the Disclose Act, which had 114 cosponsors (only two of those sponsors were Republican). The Act would have prohibited secret donations, require companies to disclose their giving to their shareholders, and ban foreign companies from electioneering. However, this bill was not without blemish, including language in the legislation that exempted the National Rifle Association (NRA). The Disclose Act barely passed the House, but failed in the Senate. The legislation has been reintroduced, and may garner support from more prominent politicians, such as Senator John McCain.
Another option would be to appeal to the Supreme Court again after there is a shift or change in their majority judges, due to retirement or the passing of a Judge. Many claim that this strategy was the one utilized by the Citizens United representation. While this tactic seems a bit passive or lazy, it provides sufficient time for patient, careful thought and strategy, which could potentially have a greater chance of success, especially with the non-requirement of congressional approval in a divided
One option includes a Constitutional Amendment declaring that corporations are not the same as individuals, and money in politics is not the same as free speeach. However, this option requires two-thirds of congress (in both chambers) to agree and an additional three-fourths majority of legislators from the states. While this option seems unrealistic, it has been done before in the instances of enacting prohibition in 1919, then overturning prohibition later in 1933. Another example of this process was as recent as 1971, when congress amended the constitution to lower the legal voting age to 18 years old. All that said, while it’s possible for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, due to the deeply divided political climate in Congress, it would be highly unlikely to occur, at least during the current …show more content…
Shortly after the Citizens United ruling, a Democratic congressman introduced the Disclose Act, which had 114 cosponsors (only two of those sponsors were Republican). The Act would have prohibited secret donations, require companies to disclose their giving to their shareholders, and ban foreign companies from electioneering. However, this bill was not without blemish, including language in the legislation that exempted the National Rifle Association (NRA). The Disclose Act barely passed the House, but failed in the Senate. The legislation has been reintroduced, and may garner support from more prominent politicians, such as Senator John McCain.
Another option would be to appeal to the Supreme Court again after there is a shift or change in their majority judges, due to retirement or the passing of a Judge. Many claim that this strategy was the one utilized by the Citizens United representation. While this tactic seems a bit passive or lazy, it provides sufficient time for patient, careful thought and strategy, which could potentially have a greater chance of success, especially with the non-requirement of congressional approval in a divided