On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed for corporations and capitalist enterprises to be treated as individuals during an election period. This ruling allows corporations to spend or give an unlimited amount of money in contributions to their party or candidate of choice in any given election. With the loss of corporate financial regulations, our entire political system runs the risk of being corrupted by corporations whose sole objective is to satisfy its share-holders. This ruling affects all Americans their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." President Barack Obama had this to say about the ruling:
"The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans....while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates."(Obama, "Statement from the President on Today's Supreme Court Decision.")
President Obama's quote explains how the endless amount of corporate funding that is now allowed will drown out the voices of campaign donaters and volunteers. An electoral candidate is reliant on funding in order to run a successful campaing. In the past, funding was provided largely by individual citizens whose financial influence is used to pressure politicians into making decisions that will benefit their employment, living standards, and safety among other essential elements to a persons happiness. With corporations bein...
... middle of paper ...
... not vote in their own country. The outrage of the American people forced this amendment to become the fastest in U.S. History to become ratified in just 107 days. The 26th Amendment should speak to us as an example of the power we have as citizens, to unite and to show our concern of the court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and the repercussions that it will have on ourselves and future generations to come.
Works Cited
"CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N." CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N. N.p., 24 Mar. 2009. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
Obama, Barack H. "Statement from the President on Today's Supreme Court Decision." The White House. N.p., 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
"U.S. Department of Labor -- History -- 5. Progressive Era Investigations." U.S. Department of Labor -- History -- 5. Progressive Era Investigations. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
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.
Section 1. of the Amendment XXVI of the Constitution of the United States (US) states that the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Both houses of the Congress passed the amendment in March 1971.With thirty-eight states adopting it by July 1971; the 26th Amendment was ratified because the prerequisite for three-fourths of states approval had been achieved. President Nixon signed the amendment into law in the same year making the 26th constitutional amendment the quickest to ever be incorporated into the US Constitution. The amendment evoked diverse reactions amongst the public, with some saw it as a judicious
Homer Plessy vs. the Honorable John H. Ferguson ignited the spark in our nation that ultimately led to the desegregation of our schools, which is shown in the equality of education that is given to all races across the country today. “The Plessy decision set the precedent that ‘separate’ facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were ‘equal’” (“The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow”). The case of Plessy vs. Ferguson not only illuminated the racial inequality within our education system, but also brought to light how the standard of ‘separate but equal’ affected every aspect of African American lives.
MacLaury, J. 1998. “A Brief History: The Department of Labor.” The United States Department of Labor.
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.
"Inaugural Address by President Barack Obama." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. .
U.S. Department of Labor. U.S. Department of Labor, n.d. Web. The Web. The Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
The world of business is a dog-eat-dog world, some may win and some may lose. Large capitalist corporations take a great deal of revenue away from the local businesses. Big businesses dominate the American government and have much more influence and power than small businesses. By defining the importance of recognizing that big businesses has been dominating the government, by refuting those who claim that big businesses do not influence government practices and policies, and by presenting sound arguments and extensive research to show the damage big business has done to society and the influence it has on America’s governing body, one will be persuaded that big businesses has dominated the American government
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
The struggle for equal rights has been an ongoing issue in the United States. For most of the twentieth century Americans worked toward equality. Through demonstrations, protests, riots, and parades citizens have made demands and voiced their concerns for equal rights. For the first time minority groups were banding together to achieve the American dream of liberty and justice for all. Whether it was equality for women, politics, minorities, or the economy the battle was usually well worth the outcome. I have chosen articles that discuss some of the struggles, voyages, and triumphs that have occurred. The people discussed in the following articles represent only a portion of those who suffered.
... who are eligible of voting should get out there and vote. We fought to expand suffrage, and now we must show the government we are capable of voting.
U.S. Senate, Testimony of Samuel Gompers, August 1883, Report of the Committee of the Senate upon the Relations between Labor and Capital (Washington, D.C., 1885), 1:365-70.] 6 November 2004. .
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
The first ever corporate employment department formed for labor concern was created by the B.F. Goodrich Company during 1900. In the 1960s and 1970s the federal government enforced fair treatment of...
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.