Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission (2010)
The landmark Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) changed the system of political campaign contributions in the United States. In the close 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that organizations are allowed to make unlimited political donations. The Justices reached their decision using the First Amendment, which pertains to free speech. To state it plainly, money equals speech. Surely, the Justices in favor of the decision assumed that the donor groups or individuals would be truly independent of the candidates. However, they were wrong. A few wealthy individuals took advantage of the ruling and began to rev up their political contributions through a complex web of organizations. Now politicians armed
…show more content…
The changing landscape in the country has contributed to the uptick in gridlock in Washington D.C. The Supreme Court case has given rise to Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) which have contributed billions of dollars to negative media advertisement of rival candidates. An area to explore in regards to this case are the loopholes created and their consequences. For instance, nonprofits who are not legally required to disclose the names of their donors can function similar to Super PACs. In addition, American subsidiary corporations owned by a foreign parent company are allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political committees. As a result, it is possible that foreign entities are influencing U.S. elections. We are sure no one wants that to occur given the 2016 U.S. Presidential election controversy. Our goal is to explore the origins of the Supreme Court case, noting that longstanding reforms to campaign contributions were overturned, and it’s devastating aftermath. If the money of a few wealthy individuals and organizations outweighs the power of ordinary citizens, everyone does have an equal voice. These circumstances deteriorate the voice of that latter group, as they do not have the power to donate as much to the political campaigns. In the meanwhile, citizen’s faith in their government has fallen as more money entered politics through these shady
The changing landscape in the country has contributed to the uptick in gridlock in Washington D.C. The Supreme Court case has given rise to Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) which have contributed billions of dollars to negative media advertisement of rival candidates. An area to explore in regards to this case are the loopholes created and their consequences. For instance, nonprofits who are not legally required to disclose the names of their donors can function similar to Super PACs. In addition, American subsidiary corporations owned by a foreign parent company are allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political committees. As a result, it is possible that foreign entities are influencing U.S. elections. We are sure no one wants that to occur given the 2016 U.S. Presidential election controversy. Our goal is to explore the origins of the Supreme Court case, noting that longstanding reforms to campaign contributions were overturned, and it’s devastating aftermath. If the money of a few wealthy individuals and organizations outweighs the power of ordinary citizens, everyone does have an equal voice. These circumstances deteriorate the voice of that latter group, as they do not have the power to donate as much to the political campaigns. In the meanwhile, citizen’s faith in their government has fallen as more money entered politics through these shady