In the year 2008 a new change in the law was introduced in the United States. It was the year that Supreme Court ruled on the
Citizen's United vs. FEC (Federal Election Commission) case in favor of Citizen's United. The ruling allowed corporations and organizations for the first time to have the same rights as U.S. citizens. Specifically the ruling would give the first amendment right of freedom of speech to corporations. This change can be a game changer for democracy it has the power to empower a broader conversation within our political system. A level of transparency can be seen from the listing of donors for each of the Super PACs. At the same time there is an influx of large sums of money that are used to gain a media advantage over the competition which can be unfair.
 |
| ‘My Super PAC Can Beat Up Your Super PAC!’ |
The conservatives are claiming that this move is "good for democracy". They believe because of the ruling there will be an increase in the "number of voices in campaigns". David Bossie from Citizen United said it was a victory for the first amendment and the "...fundamental rights of people to participate in the political process and the market place of ideas". They claim to be spreading awareness and education. The supporters of the decision don't see the corporations as evil entities. They see corporations as "legitimate enterprises" that should have the right to express the companies political views.
Cleta Mitchell from Foley & Lardner LLC stated "the bigger the business in America the more politically correct it is". They see the ruling as a way to level the playing field which allows conservatives to have better exposure in the media. The conservatives believe if we don't let corporations and associations voice their political views then we are limiting our democracy.
The liberals on the other hand are afraid that the influx of corporate money, the possibility of billions, will harm the political process by allowing the Super PACs to manipulate the results of an election. They believe that with enough money an election can be purchased via the use of political ads to influence the voter base. They specifically worry about the influence to those citizens with limited education. Another if not greater fear is that corporations will back conservatives over liberals because of their "pro business" stance in the GOP party. However, with that being said they also believe that it gives corporations "too much power" in this country's political process.That it allows the Super PACs to run ads that may not be accurate or "downright manipulative", but allows a candidate to safely claim it wasn't their doing.
 |
| Student body Super PAC by DAVID FITZSIMMONS |
 |
| ABC-Washington Post poll results |
Once again I'm with the liberal point of view on this one. I don't think it's a good idea for corporations to have the first amendment right. The corporations speech should be limited to selling their product or services and providing customer support. A corporation is a group of people and as individuals they can voice their personal political views just like any other citizen. The conservatives would like you to believe that it levels the playing field and allows an increase in the number of voices in a campaign. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of us our voices are drowned in the political process. The
top 25 donors to the Super PAC's in 2012 gave over $300 million dollars, with the
Adelson family given a whopping $93 Million. How can a regular Joe compete with those numbers? The reporter
Rachel Maddow in
MSNBC said "...what's the point in individual people trying to influence politics with their donations if Exxon or some other company can quite literally match and therefore cancel out the combined donation of every single individual donor in the nation whenever it wants". That's a very scary prospect that our political system can be even more unresponsive to the people and cater even further to big business. Lastly let point you to a 2010
ABC-Washington Post poll done in Feb. 4-8, 2010 that showed %80 of individuals opposed the ruling. Ironic that a country founded by the people for the people now gives rights to corporations, which sole purpose is to make money, and with their money the corporations have a bigger voice than the people.
