Citizens United: the Death Knell of Democracy Essay

In 2010, the Supreme Court of the join States govern on the Federal Elections c be v. Citizens unite, a cutting that bequeath chip in drastic effects on our semi governmental system. Large corporations and labor unions allow at once have unprecedented find out over Americas national, severalise, and local choices. If Congress does not overturn the Supreme Court judgement on Citizens United then, as a result, the closing has the potential to fill to political corruption, the increase of elector apathy, and the drowning out of third companionship ideas. currently our countrys political system will no perennial work for the good of its citizens, still preferably be beholden to whomever has the or so currency to contri besidese.The Supreme Court decision on the Citizens United case is one of the most de grandating court decisions in our countrys history, but many people know little to nothing rough the landmark case. Citizens United is a conservative non-profit org anization, and in 2008 they attempted to give way federal campaign jurisprudences by distributing a documentary critical of Sen. Hillary Clinton. The law Citizens Untied violated was the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform bet that prohibits, Broadcast advertisements mentioning a campaigner within 30 days in front a primary or 60 days ahead a general election (par. 19). As a result, the Federal Election Commission blocked the film and Citizens United sued on the grounds that it violated their archetypal amendment right to reconcile speech however, Citizens United lost the case in Federal Court, but they appealed and the case went before the Supreme Court.The question proposed before the court was whether Citizens United should have been allowed to show the Clinton documentary. According to Adam Liptak, a political columnist for The New York Times, Instead, the court addressed the questions it proposed to the parties in June when it curing down the case for an unusual secon d argument in September, those of whether capital of Texas and McConnell should be overruled (par. 26). The court ruled 5-4 that Citizens United had the right to show the Clinton film, but in the process they also overturned Austin and McConnell, two cases that had antecedently banned corporate and union contributions to political campaigns. jurist Anthony Kennedy wrote in the volume opinion, By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinate with a candidate (par. 17). Justice Kennedys opinion equates cash to free speech as want as the money is not right away given to a candidates campaign. Justice Kennedy went on to state that, Political speech is indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation quite than an individual (par. 20). Justice Kennedy believes that corporations are entitled to the same rights as military personnel beings. The Supreme Courts decision on Citizens United has now enabled corporations and unions to pour exorbitant measures of money into Americas electoral landscape.First, fadeless negative campaign advertisements bombarded Americans for nearly two years before the presidential election, and a vast amount were paid for by topnotch PACs. These wide political action committees are a direct byproduct of the Citizens United decision, and are funded by corporations, wealthy individuals, and labor unions. There are no laws limiting how much one can donate to these Super PACs, and they are allowed to spend millions of dollars towards the victory or frustration of a candidate. As long as Super PACs do not immediately contribute to a candidates campaign, they are allowed to spend as much money as they please. Most of the advertisements sponsored by Super PACs mirror the views of the candidate they support. wholeness realizes that Super PACs cannot contribute fiscally to a candidate however, that candida te directly benefits from the millions of dollars spent on political ads by a Super PAC.Second, with the plain endless amounts of money Super PACs can raise, they possess a vast amount of political influence. Super PACs have the potential to cause political corruption on a level not seen since the Water logic gate Scandal during the Nixon administration. For example, Super PACs can use their political war chests to defeat nearly any candidate that does not support their agenda by flooding every media line of descent with scathing attack ads. As a result, politicians will feel compelled to voting in favor of the bills that would benefit the donors of a Super PAC. Politicians will be extremely reluctant to go up against a Super PAC that has an almost endless supply of money that could be used to support a challenger. It may only be a prediction for the future, but many Americans already believe Super PACs will cause corruption. For example, a survey of 1,015 adults conducted by the Brennan Center For Justice discovered, 69% of respondents agreed that new rules that let corporations, unions and people give illimitable money to Super PACs will lead to corruption (par. 7).The American earth is noticing the effects of the Super PACs and they foresee a bleak political future. Third, voter apathy is on the rise and Super PACs are the main endorser for example, a survey of 1,015 adults by the Brennan Center For Justice found, One in four Americans 26% say that they are less likely to vote because big donors to Super PACs have so much more influence over elected officials than average Americans (par. 14). The Brennan Centers survey shows that a significant amount of Americans believe that their vote is worthless. Supreme Court Justice John capital of Minnesota Stevens wrote in the minority opinion for FEC v. Citizens United, A democracy cannot function in effect when its constituents believe laws are being bought and sold (qtd. in Dionne, par. 7). Justice Stevens believes the eternal amount of money labor unions, the wealthy, and corporations can spend on political campaigns in order to meet their own agendas will cause Americans to retrogress trust in their government, and when our government loses the trust of its citizens our democracy will sack only to be replaced by an authoritarian state.Fourth, Citizens United will officially end the third party system, but the most tragic will be the end of third party ideas. Some of the most authoritative legislation in our countrys history started out as third party ideas. For example, abolition of slavery, child labor laws, workers compensation, direct election of Senators, global warming, and womens suffrage were once the basis of the third party political platform. Super PACs have the resources to pay exorbitant amounts to spread their messages through and through advertisements, but third parties do not possess the resources to fiscally argue with them. Super PACs have the fiscal ability to monopolize every media source in order to drown any ideas that do not comply with their own. The first amendment protects the right to communicate ones opinion and ideas, but the Supreme Court has stripped that right away from our third party system.It is abundantly clear that the Citizens United decision has unleashed a scourge on the American political landscape in the form of Super PACs. As a result, our federal representatives must pass a constitutional amendment overturning the Citizens United decision, and pass new campaign finance legislation requiring campaigns to only be funded by the government. The benefit of having campaigns paid for by the government is every candidate will get the same amount of money, and politicians will no prolonged have to feel beholden to wealthy donors and corporate interests, but rather work for the good of their constituents. In conclusion, our country has been through many crises and it has unceasingly overcame them. One has to believe t hat our government will make the right decision and overturn the Citizens United decision, thus restoring our trust in government by taking the power away from the labor unions, millionaires, and corporations, and putting the power bottom where it rightfully belongs with the American people.