In the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy declared, “The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, despite the speaker’s corporate identity.” This ruling essentially means that corporations are free to influence campaigns with their enormous sums of money, and are subject to almost no restrictions.
The Supreme Court, through a very partisan decision, declared that the constitutional right to free speech should be extended to corporations and their money. In the decade since that ruling, the amount of “dark money” in federal elections has increased exponentially. “Dark money” refers to spending from nonprofit organizations, such as charities, which are not required to disclose the identities of their donors. This means that individuals may donate as much money as they wish, which can be funneled to political campaigns, without anyone knowing where the money is coming from. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group devoted to tracking money’s influence in American politics, in the elections before and after Citizens United, there was an increase of over 300% in dark money contributions in presidential elections.
In addition to the increase in dark money contributions, super PAC spending has more than double the amount outside spending on federal elections. A super PAC differs from dark money organizations in that these groups cannot donate directly to political campaigns or parties. While both types of fundraising groups may raise unlimited money from corporations and individuals, super PACs must influence elections through their own advertisements or other avenues not directly connected to a campaign or party. According to the Pew Research Center, the money coming from political action committees and party committees has remained constant since the 2010 court case, but spending from super PACs has increased from nearly $0 to as much as $600 million.
In total, these avenues for fundraising have added billions of dollars to the political landscape. Realistically, it is impossible to compete for national office, such as the Office of the President, without enormous sums of money. Intuitively, the campaign that receives the most publicity will win the election. Therefore, the campaign with the most money, be it from dark money or super PACs, is likely to gain power over American politics. This is a horrifying reality that poses a serious threat to our democracy.
Many Democrats have recently vowed to reject money from super PACs, but they rarely speak about dark money contributions. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders does not accept large dollar donations, meaning that his campaign finance is shockingly transparent, but very few are willing to follow in his footsteps. Regardless of a few good politicians’ choice to utilize grassroots fundraising, corporate money has taken over federal elections, and this development must be reversed.
Under current regulations, elections may be decided by just a few individuals. Corporations, at the whims of a few out-of-touch executives, may shovel millions and millions of dollars into the pockets of any politician who swears to protect their interests. This means that our democratically-elected officials have no incentive to cater to the needs of their constituents, as their constituents (somewhat counter-intuitively) are not the ones keeping them in office. The only solution is to eliminate big money from politics. Overturning Citizens United would be a good start to saving our democracy. Forcing politicians to utilize grassroots organizing would make them better representatives. Their money would be tied to their performance in office and would lead the nation in a direction more closely tied with the vision of its people. This belief is somewhat non-partisan. Every American has it in their best interests to act against corporate influence of politics, and to act in favor of the democratic institutions that make this nation so great. If you wish to act as an individual to help enact these reforms, I recommend helping groups such as the Center for Responsive Politics, mentioned above, or taking part in grassroots organizing to get people in office who care about your voice.
Be First to Comment