2010 Supreme Court Case

Better Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Super Prc Pros And Cons

    • 1622 Words
    • 6 Pages

    They believe unlimited funds being raised will create corruption and will violate the average citizen 's political equality. During Obama 's participation in the presidential election in 2012 he spoke out against Super PACs. Obama was criticized because he had Super PACs that supported him. However, Obama 's campaigns were organized by average citizen and many average citizens donated to Obama 's campaign. "Obama, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are getting between 47 percent and 49 percent from small donors, according to OpenSecrets.org" (Super PACs send price of 'free ' speech).…

    • 1622 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Smith, the author says that the ruling in Citizens United is a way to protect political speech and that it will not affect elections because in the past, big corporation have not shown interest in participating in politics. The author start its article by emphasizing how before the ruling of Citizens United the government was able to banned books, and he cites Justice Alito saying “I find that pretty incredible”. The author mentions that by the time the court gave its decision in Citizens United case 28 states in the United State already allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. He also states that small businesses are more likely to participate in political campaigns than big corporations, yet they would not have the money to make a difference in a presidential race. From a personal point of view the Citizens United ruling is good in the way that it will allowed corporations to publish books or films.…

    • 775 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In fact, “in 2012, organized interest groups spent $3.5 billion annually lobbying” and PACs had invested “approximately $1.55 billion in campaign contributions,” added together that is 5.05 billion dollars from companies and special interest groups to their favored candidate or favored legislation (Raphel). This incredible amount of money has one simple goal, determining the outcome of elections and legislation. Many Americans feel that these companies essentially buyout elections and legislators in order to further along their financial gain. The best way to prevent this travesty is to eliminate private contributions toward elections and to force politicians to raise money from the public. This way, officials are compelled pander to what they should, the majority of citizens, rather than a select group of millionaires and billionaires.…

    • 700 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Super Pcs In Elections

    • 1353 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Super PACs in Elections In our modern world, money holds a massive amount of power. Money is a motivator. Our civilization is a slave to its power. Money has the power the encourage people to act against their morals and their own interest. Not only does money rule every aspect of our personal life but it has also sized control of our government.…

    • 1353 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Our current voting system has many negative effects on elections and the voters that participate in them all across the United States. Page stated that in our last election almost 90 million Americans said they weren’t going to vote in a survey conducted by Suffolk University. One of their main reasons was that their votes didn’t matter in choosing a new president. The knowledge that their votes don’t actually count in the presidential election discourages many people from voting in a country whose main principle is citizen participation in government. More people would be encouraged to vote if their votes mattered and had a larger impact in the goings-on in their country.…

    • 1339 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Amos Summary

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Political party platforms are taking money from certain contributors to direct their message not towards what they actually believe would help the country to be successful, but rather toward what the money they are receiving is going towards. An example of this was the DNC’s efforts to make sure Bernie Sanders could not win the democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton. Because of the DNC’s power, they were not punished adequately for essentially thwarting a nomination unfairly. This corruption is what Amos prophecies against as this exploits the American people as a whole. Corporations, government, and the common man/woman are the three main groups of people with influence in America with corporations and government, having significantly more power than the common man, which shows that America isn’t succeeding at being a Democracy, as the ordinary person should have the most power in terms of directing leadership in America.…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Big Money In Elections

    • 1638 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Combined, in a presidential election years it can be upwards of two or three billion dollars. To give some perspective, one billion seconds is around thirty-two years; it’s practically impossible to imagine that translated into dollar bills. One of the most influential places that candidates get this money is from PACs who are organized interest groups and, currently, can donate up to $5000 per candidate per election. But, PACs try to get around this limit by creating super PACs which can spend unlimited amounts of money on advertising and other such forms of media rather than just directly donating to a candidate. These super PACs greatly increase the amount of bribery in the current system since it’s an underhanded way to get more support from constituents.…

    • 1638 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hiserodt also states that taxpayers spend more than $22 billion dollars a year on just global warming and most of it come from taxpayers (14). Hiserodt also states that the president spends thirty times as much money on global warming research over weather forecasting and warning (14). Hiserodt calls a “gross misallocation” which means that the government is taking money for no reason which makes tons of people unhappy about the taxation. “...the president pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund…” (Hiserodt 16). Donald Trump also thinks that global warming is a hoax.…

    • 1268 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In the 2000 presidential election, most people were prepared to accept that Al Gore would be the next president even though he would likely lose the popular vote. However, the opposite happened. George Bush won the presidency through a small margin of electoral votes, but had lost the popular vote of the people. This election is an example of how the Electoral College diminishes the importance of the votes of the people. Most people know of the electoral college, they have read about it in their U.S. Government textbooks or have heard it mentioned in a political news broadcast, but some people are unclear on how much power the electoral college possesses; it is the electors who have the power to elect the President of the United States, not…

    • 1175 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The bottom line is that corporate actions meant to influence a decision in favor of personal gains are unethical, regardless of whether or not lobbying remains legal. Mega-corporations rarely dump millions of dollars into federal and state campaigns for the benefit of American citizens – they are driven by profit motives. An additional ethical implication of corporate lobbying is a specter of “corporate nepotism” that restricts the profession of lobbying to those who have previous connections in Washington or Wall Street, while excluding those who don’t. Consequently, corporate lobbying remains a closed-circuit process limited to only the most influential actors. In the 2012 election cycle, nearly one-third of the $6 billion in identifiable…

    • 738 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays