Although recently some political scientists have reported that campaigns are of decreasing importance in American politics, campaigns have the ability to transform the opinions of American voters and therefore, transform our government leaders. Political campaigns are heavily reliant upon funds collected by parties and specific candidates which are used to promote specific causes and candidates as well as to defame other candidates. Since the 1970s, several pieces of legislation have been passed in an attempt to regulate campaign finances. As a consequence of the 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United vs the Federal Election Commission, many of these regulations have been ruled futile. The 5 to 4 split decision in this 2010 Supreme Court case has led to an outstanding increase in campaign spending with the introduction of 501(c) groups and Super PACs whose contributions have completed altered American politics.
From the 1980s onward, the federal government has passed several pieces of legislation for the purpose of regulating finances in political campaigns. The Election Campaign Act of 1971 limited the amount of money that could be contributed to presidential and congressional candidates, required that the people contributing to a candidate’s campaign were disclosed and reported, and regarded public financing of presidential elections (textbook). Only five years after its passing, the court had to reaffirm the act in the case of Buckley vs. Valeo, adding that contributing money to a political campaign was a form of exercising the first amendment right to freedom of speech. The first amendment declares that individuals are protected from government violation of their right to self-expression via speech, press, etc. The Buckley vs. Valeo case called for the removal of restrictions on the amount of personal funds that could be spent by individuals, groups, and politician, therefore removing any sort of limit on total campaign spending.
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or McCain-Feingold Act was issued, banning “unrestricted (‘soft-money’) donations made directly to political parties (often by corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals) and the solicitation of these donations by elected officials” (textbook). This act also placed some regulations prohibiting these same organizations (as well as non-profits) from running campaign ads within 60 days of elections, but restrictions on issue ads were later removed in 2007.
In 2008, conservative non-profit, Citizens United, made an attempt to release a film entitled Hillary: The Movie, which brutally criticized presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The lower courts ruled that releasing the movie and advertisements for the movie was a violation of the previously mentioned McCain Feingold Act. The lower courts prohibited the organization from promoting or airing the movie within thirty day of the 2008 democratic primaries. Allowing the release of the movie or advertisements for it could alter the outcomes of the primaries unfairly considering how close the release date would have been to voting. Unsatisfied, citizens united decided to take the case to the Supreme Court in the 2010 case Citizens United vs. FEC.
Citizens United vs. F.E.C. is a particularly controversial case today considering how recently it occurred and how great an impact its verdict can make on American politics. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to prevent individuals, corporations, and unions from using their own money to make independent political expenditures. The Supreme Court decided on a 5 to 4 decision that corporations and unions have the same rights as individuals and therefore, government legislation limiting the amount of personal funds these organizations can spend in the political realm infringes their first amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that these organizations are permitted to spend an unlimited amount on campaigns whether supporting a certain cause or candidate, or defaming another candidate.
The claims in this case that restricting the liberated use of corporate treasury funds is a violation of first amendment rights is alarming because it gives the impression that corporations are people. The individual shareholders in these organizations are completely capable to legally speak and act upon their political beliefs by using their personal funds and therefore, no individual’s rights are being targeting by eliminating corporations from political campaigning funds. Campaign law scholar Jessie Levinson says, “You’re not silencing a viewpoint, you’re silencing volume.” The amount of money that can be compiled from a huge corporation as opposed to the amount that can be compiled from an individual person differs drastically. According to statistics, Walmart alone owns more wealth than the bottom forty percent of the American population. Allowing large corporations like Walmart and Exxon to contribute limitless amounts of money toward political campaigns actually endangers the rights of the average American. Only the candidates that promote the policies that are in line with the agendas of these huge corporations receive extensive media exposure, influencing the knowledge acquired by Americans that are not highly involved in politics.
Allowing large for-profit corporations to manipulate media exposure to candidates and certain issues is quite problematic. The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling directly led to the rise of 501(c) groups as well as Super PACs which permit the wealthy to dictate the future of our nation. While Super PACs can accept unlimited amounts of donations into their funds, they are required to report where their money is coming from to the FEC, allowing the American voter to know exactly who the commercials they are bombarded with come election season come from. Conversely, 501(c) groups are social-welfare groups that are only permitted to spend half of their funds on political activities, however they are not required to report who provides their funding. 501(c) groups allow large corporations to promote their personal agenda anonymously, which can influence the perspective of the naïve American. 501(c) groups often hide behind innocuous names that are foreign to the average American. The name of the organization sponsoring campaign-oriented commercials changes the way people perceive the content of the message. If an American was made aware that the American Action Network was backed by a large oil company like Exxon, they may understand the true intentions behind the commercial promoting anti-environmental policies or a candidate that supported those policies. The anonymity of 501(c) groups misleads Americans because they lack context as they conceal whom their organization is backed by.
Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision often argue that corporations are often the only opportunity lower-income Americans have to contribute to political campaigns. Supporters say the corporations enable the average American, who cannot afford to finance an ad entirely on their own, to pool money together with others who share the same ideologies as them to promote their candidate or cause. However, a majority of these corporations participate in 501(c) s and refuse to reveal where their funds come from. If the funds provided by these organizations came from blue-collar workers trying to contribute to politics there would be no motivation to conceal their identity. Corporation funding silences the voices of the less-wealthy individuals, and the Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to do so is an infringement of the rights of every American individual: “Corporations shouldn’t be able to be given the same rights to buy up and drown out regular citizens’ voices in the arena of political speech” (Kathay Feng).
The founding of fathers of our nation established America intending to avoid the many issues faced in the governments of European countries. The American experiment began for the purpose of creating a place where the sheep would not have to fear being preyed upon by the wolves: “Citizens United is a sharpening of the wolves’ teeth” (John Nichols). The entire purpose of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect the American people from being taken advantage of by those in power. Permitting wealthy individuals and corporations to monopolize media because of the funding they have available is the epitome of the principles our country was founded upon. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said, “We are well on our way to see our great country turn to an oligarchic form of government where virtually all economic and political power rests with a handful of very wealthy families.”