Introduction
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
Campaign Finance in the United States
During the Gilded Age—a period that began in the 1870s wherein the United States experienced tremendous economic growth—affluent industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie exercised, owing in large part to their wealth, enormous influence over the direction of American politics. Though left unaddressed during the Gilded Age, the issue of corporate involvement in political affairs was eventually identified as a corrosive problem in President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address. In his address, Roosevelt asserted that corporate spending in federal elections had the potential to engender corruption—or the appear...
... middle of paper ...
...nsible for the content of this advertising.” Citizens United, aware that the airing of Hillary during the 2008 primaries would be illegal, tried to obtain an injunction to preclude the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the McCain-Feingold Act, claiming that sections 201, 203, and 311 of the law violated the First Amendment. The Federal Election Commission, despite Citizens United’s efforts, held that broadcast of Hillary would violate the McCain-Feingold Act and proceeded to ban the film from airing on television. Citizens United, seeking injunctive relief, decided to bring its case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. However, upon discovering that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had denied its application, Citizens United decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The late 19th century and early 20th century was the age of big businesses. It bore a class of entrepreneurs known as robber barons. These entrepreneurs carry a perception in the eyes of most historical commentators that they committed veiled larceny acts to enrich themselves to the detriment of the customers, often seeking the aid of politicians to support their crony capitalist endeavors. Such portrayal by the historians lives us with the picture of greedy and exploitative capitalists. However, there are cases where this ‘robber baron’ string of entrepreneurs did indeed exploit their customers financial gain. Jay Cooke, famously known as the ‘financier of the Civil War’, was an example of this string of entrepreneurs and their reaches within the United States government.
Roper v. Simmons is a perfect example of the evolving role of the Supreme Court, the sources the Supreme Court used to reach the ruling in this case is quite questionable. While I agree with the Supreme Court about protecting the younger citizens of America the Supreme Court must have the law to back up their ruling. Though in this case they do not the Supreme Court used a combination of foreign policy, moral decency, and state laws as the legal foundation for this decision. None of these things are appropriate sources for deciding what is constitutional and what is not. The sources used for deciding the constitutionality of a case are the constitution and federal statues. While the case can be loosely tied in with the eighth amendment clause of “cruel and unusual punishment” there is no backing for the decision made. The Supreme Court with this case decided that it did not overturn the previous case of Stanford v. Kentucky, which ruled on this same issue fifteen years earlier. Yet the court stated that the prevailing moral code had altered therefore they changed their opinion. The truly shocking issue with this is that the neither law nor constitution had changed regarding this issue in the interceding fifteen years. The grave problem with this case is that the Supreme Court used the case of Roper V. Simmons to create law based of invalid sources.
George Washington Plunkitt worked his way as a young boy in the New York city politics to become one of the most well know statesman that city has ever now. As a young boy, he became an “apprenticeship of the business “(RIORDON, Chapter, 1) of politics by “working around the district headquarters and hustling about the polls on Election Day” (RIORDON, Chapter, 1). He steadily built a following and became very clever in the political game. Plunkitt had definite idea’s as to what characteristics where needed to thrive in the political arena. If one understood that there could be personal benefits in being in politics, then one could succeed greatly, he was fond of the saying “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘en” (RIORDON, Chapter, 1). In order to make it in the political game, one must distinguish between an honest graft and a dishonest graft. Plunkitt idea’s of an honest graft was to basically find opportunities and take action on them before someone else could benefit from them. While working in city government, Plunkitt used his position to benefit himself and his friend, for example, he would “go to that place and I buy up all the land I can in the neighborhood. Then the board of this or that makes its plan public, and there is a rush to get my land, which nobody cared, particular for before. Ain’t it perfectly honest to charge a good price and make a profit on my investment and foresight? Of course, it is. Well, that’s honest graft. Or supposin’ it’s a new bridge they’re goin’ to build. I get tipped off and I buy, as much property as I can that has to be taken for approaches. I sell at my own price later on and drop some more money in the bank. Wouldn’t you? It’s just like lookin’ ahead in Wall Street or in the cof...
During the Gilded Age, several Americans emerged as leaders in many fields such as, railroads, oil drilling, manufacturing and banking. The characterization of these leaders as “robber barons” is, unfortunately, nearly always correct in every instance of business management at this time. Most, if not all, of these leaders had little regard for the public or laborers at all and advocated for the concentration of wealth within tight-knit groups of wealthy business owners.
...he government to the ordinary people as explained in July 5, 1892 by the Omaha Morning World –Herald (Doc F). Lastly, the laws for the regulation of businesses was enforces until President Theodore Roosevelt had also contributed by suing companies that violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this point in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, commonly referred to as plain “Citizens United”, in the majority opinion. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, wrote that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,” (Kennedy). Basically, he is saying that if free speech means anything, it must apply to the case of campaign contributions. Where Citizens United failed, however, was its cap on independent expenditures that corporations could make. It let corporations influence elections but limited money spent. SpeechNow.org v. FEC solved that issue. It ruled against the cap of donations on Super PACs (Forget Citizens United). In conjunction with the Citizens United decision, Super PACs were finally able to use their free speech. This paved a path for free speech in the election
This forced industrialists and monopolistic corporations to consider public opinion when making business decisions, which benefited the consumer and helped grow the economy. One way that Wilson and Roosevelt tried protecting these smaller businesses was by removing trusts that were much bigger than they were. Under Wilson’s authority in 1814, the Clayton Anti-trust Act was passed, which abolished interlocking directorates. This law was passed as an amendment to clarify and supplement the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. When Roosevelt became president in 1901, he demanded a “Square Deal” that would address his principal concerns for the era- the three C’s: control of corporations, consumer protection, and conservation.... ...
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
A controversial modern U.S. Supreme Court decision is the McCullen v. Coakley case. An initial ruling for this case in Massachusetts, “…has made it a crime for speakers to ‘enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk’ within 35 feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of ‘a reproductive health care facility.’ The law applies only at abortion clinics…In effect, the law restricts the speech of only those who wish to use public areas near abortion clinics to speak about abortion from a different point of view” (American Bar Association). This decision in the case has called for it to be heard again by the U.S. Supreme court as it is now a question of (1) if it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) if a past decision in Hill v. Colorado permits this law and whether or not it should be overruled (American Bar Association).
The post-Civil War years between 1865 and 1900 were a time of immense social change and economic growth in the United States. This time period, commonly referred to as “The Gilded Age,” saw an end to Reconstruction, rapid industrialization, and new wealth. Despite these achievements, however, the era between Reconstruction and the beginning of the twentieth century was plagued by political stalemate, a decline of human values, increased materialism, and widespread corruption.
Kenneth Vogel’s Big Money explores the invasion of money into our political system. In the novel, Vogel explains one of the most important important events that is currently happening in today’s elections: donors. This, according to Vogel, has been brought on by a ruling in the case Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The result of this case destroyed finance restrictions, giving Corporations and Unions the same laws of freedom of speech as individual Americans. The novel opens in February of 2012 where Vogel sneaks into a donor banquet. As our current president, Barack Obama, gives his speech, Vogel makes a note of the President’s words. In particular, Vogel focuses on one line “You now have the potential
Despite the fact that America’s economy was heavily influenced by government interference and favoritism under John Quincy Adams and the American System, by 1832 Andrew Jackson, the Champion of the Common Man, jeopardized his political security in the interest of both preserving every man’s right to opportunity and upholding a nonpartisan economy. We can draw insight from Jackson’s disgust for banks, or rather for any act of government that gives a special advantage to one group over another. In Jackson’s letter to Congress justifying his Bank Veto Message, he argues, “when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages... make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society… have a right to complain of the injustices of their government.” In the preceding months, Jackson was in the midst of his presidential campaign for reelection when his opponents put political pressure on him by fast tracking the Bank Bill. Jackson, however, remained steadfast in his belief that the proposed bank was unconstitutional and thus he vetoed the bill. Not surprisingly, Jackson became the object of political slander. In his reply to Jackson’s veto, Daniel Webster complains, “[This message] raises a cry that liberty is in danger, at the very moment when it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. It effects alarm for public freedom, when nothing endangers that freedom so much as its own unparalleled pretenses.” In other words, Webster proposed that through Jackson’s overuse of the veto, he was not only holding congress hostage, but also subverting democracy. On the contrary, the establishment of Jacksonian Democracy expanded the liberties of the common
After the soaring ideals and tremendous sacrifices of the Civil War, the post-War era of the United States was generally one of political disillusionment. Even as the continent expanded and industrialized, political life in the Gilded Age was marked by ineptitude and stalemate as passive, rather than active, presidents merely served as figureheads to be manipulated rather than enduring strongholds. As politicians from both the White House to the courthouse were deeply entangled in corruption and scandal during the Gilded Age, the actual economic and social issues afflicting urbanizing America festered beneath the surface without being seriously addressed. During this time, general American attention had shifted away from national politics and more towards economic change concerning the development of the West, urbanization of cities, and industrialization. Accompanying this transition was corruption in government policy, evident through immense government subsidies and land grants.
William Taft was picked by his successor, Roosevelt. Taft, the secretary of war was chosen as the Republican candidate for 1908. Taft easily defeated the other candidates thanks to Roosevelt’s “good words”. However, Taft did not live up to Roosevelt’s expectations. He lacked the strength of personality and cared more about his dealings with congress. In fact, Taft didn’t share the same progressive ideas and polices that Roosevelt backed. The first major catastrophe to the Progressives that occurred during Taft’s presidency was the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909. Taft called on Congress to address what many people thought of as excessive tariffs. After which the House of Representatives passed a bill that slightly restricted tariffs, but their legislation was strictly modified when it arrived to the Senate. Taft signed the bill and stated that it was “the best bill that the Republican Party ever passed.” This astounded and confused the Progressives and began the internal struggle for the command of the Republican Party. Another issue was Taft’s conservation problems. Taft was a conservationist much like Roosevelt but a large chunk of his work was undone by the Ballinager-Pinchot dispute. This was where Pinchot the leader of the Department of Forestry attacked Secretary of the Interior, Ballianger, for his handling of public lands. Furthermore, Ballinager opened up millions of acres for public use which angered Pinchot, in
Less than a decade ago, a monumental Supreme Court case, that many have heard of, took place. The court case was between Citizens United, a nonprofit conservative leading organization, and the Federal Election Commission, which regulates the amount of money being donated to politicians and their political parties. The court case was very divisive because it brought into question whether or not a corporation had the right to protected political speech just like an individual person does. Citizens United questioned the FEC’s regulation on corporate contributions in conjunction with an upcoming election. The response by the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was in favor of Citizens United. The Supreme