Money in Politics

The Courts and Citizens United

For years, the United States has faced issues with money that is poured into campaigns, whether they be federal, local, or dealing with candidates running for the senate and the house. Hence, the government took actions various times, placing acts to prevent corruption, and even created an “agency” that would overlook this issue. Though the agency and the acts were attacked numerous times because they violated the “First Amendment” of individuals especially of the corporations. They did not have much victory at first because there was a point where a new act placed in the early 21st century “eradicated” soft money from being used in campaigns, but all of this went to “waste” in the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United, which opened the doors for large sums of money to be poured into campaigns.

Saint Peter’s Gates left open

The Supreme Court decision on Citizens United might have been one of the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever done because it has left the gates of Saint Peter wide open to the demons of corporations and rich individuals. In the Citizens United case we had Citizens United a 501© (4) group making a movie about Hillary Clinton, attacking her, at first there was nothing wrong with the film, but it was not until the film was placed on video-demand, that it now violated the BCRA electioneering communication amendment (Briffault,2011:12). Now, in the electioneering communication amendment it states that groups must disclose information of individuals that contribute to any ads or anything related to campaigns and political candidates, and must also air their ad within a set up days during the general election and in the primary election (Urofsky,2005:271). In this case, Citizens United did not want to disclose their donors information to FEC, and went up to the Supreme Court, where the Court in a 5–4 decision ruled that Citizens United did not break any rules, and from then on corporations and unions were allowed to use their money on express advocacy expenditures (Urofsky,2005: Briffault,2011). This also occurred in the WRTL (Wisconsin Right To Life) where another 501© (4) group aired an ad mentioning Senator Feingold, but in this case the group used money from their treasury and not hard money, which now broke the BCRA amendment; and like in Citizens United the Supreme Court ruled that WRTL was exempt from the BCRA amendment (Mutch,2016:113–114). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United favored the violations of the First Amendment rhetoric that antireformers preach; the reason why would be that during the case the Court in a way “said” that these regulations limit and violate the First Amendment of Citizens United, and BCRA cannot violate their First Amendment right (Briffault,2011:11–13). Aside from the First Amendment rhetoric, there is still another rhetoric that antireformers propagate, which is that money has no influence in the political process or outcome, and that under the economy everyone is able to obtain money to contribute to campaigns or into politics (Overtone,2005:85). Though this is not true because if we view the history of campaign reformers, we see that since the early 20th century we had acts put into place like the Tillman Act, that regulated contributions from corporations in elections, and we also have the Buckley v Valeo which restricted contributions and limited expenditures (Urofsky,2005:15–21). Nonetheless, antireformers do not comprehend this and still combat reformers.

There are individuals that combat the rhetoric of how money does not influence politics, and how opportunities are given to everyone by the economy, which in turn gives them the opportunity to donate when obtaining enough money. Overtone is a good example of this in his The Donor Class article. In his article he gives examples of how in 2000 85.7% of contributions came from family households that made $100,000 or more, these households also represented only 13.4% of the population back in 2000 (Overtone,2004:76). Now this is bad because how is it possible that only a small fraction of the population was able to give contributions of about 85% to 86% in campaigns back in 2000; it is also bad because the “aggregation of wealth” has an unfair advantage for the poor and have a bigger influence in the political process (Overtone,2005:76,84). Also, in 2002 there are huge numbers of candidates that won because they raised the most money, like in congressional primaries about 90% of candidates win, while in the general election contest we see 94% of candidates win, and this is all because candidates raise a lot of money (Overtone,2005:86). A small portion of families have the ability to contribute in campaigns, and this is because not many families and their kids have the ability to go above in class status. An example of this would be how households from the bottom fifth in 1984 will still be there in five years, and about 90% of them will not move, while a 92.8% of families from the top two-fifth will not move, only small fraction those families will drop (Overtone,2005:95). There is also another example of how not everyone has the opportunity to move in status especially those of color. African-Americans in this example will not move greatly, only in the 1980’s about 19% of African-American moved to the middle class, while 47% of Whites reached the middle class (Ibid,96). Now, there are many issues that prevent people from moving in class status, and as there is little movementa small group are able to enjoy the “luxury” of donating to campaigns that help candidates win. Besides the money not having influence in politics, we also have antireformers that preach that campaign regulations are undemocratic, especially when they violate the First Amendment.

Examples of antireformers that preach that campaign regulations violate the First Amendment have always been seen in the cases of FECA, or in the early 2000 with BCRA, but there has also been others that just do not state that the First Amendment is being violated, but also that regulations are undemocratic and favor elites. A good Example of these antireformers would be Smith who in his article, Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences, speaks about how campaign regulations prevent political newcomers from gaining support, and how regulations favor political elites (Smith,1996:24,25,30). Smith also mentions that Liberals use campaign regulations to target their opponents (Smith,1996:33). Though campaign finance regulations are not to prevent political newcomers from gaining support, nor does it favor any political group, the simplicity of these reforms is just to prevent groups of individuals or corporations from having any kind of influence in the political process or outcome. Even in the McConnell decision, the Supreme Court saw no discrimination towards political groups in BCRA, on the other hand the Court saw that BCRA favored parties to raise money, but just in the form of hard money (Urofsky,2005:210).

Conclusion

In the end, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United opened loopholes in BCRA, by allowing money from unions and corporations to contribute heavily in campaigns. Also. the Court’s decision just supported the rhetoric of antireformers whom preached of regulations being unconstitutional and undemocratic. Though, these antireformers do not focus on the importance of campaign regulations mainly because majority of the population do not contribute a lot like corporations and rich individuals do. Until then, reformers must find a way to bring back Saint Peter to protect the gates from the evil corporate demons.

Citation

Overtone, Spencer. The Donor Class: Campaign Finance, Democracy, and Participation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 153. №1, Symposium: The Law of Democracy (Nov, 2004). Pp. 73–118.

Urofsky, Melvin I. Money & Free Speech: Campaign Finance Reform and the Courts. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. 2005. Print.

Mutch, Robert E. Campaign Finance: What Everyone Needs To Know. Oxford University Press. 2016. Print.

Smith, Bradley A. Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 105, №4 (Jan., 1996). Pp. 1049–1091.

Briffault, Richard. Two Challenges For Campaign Finance Disclosure After Citizens United and Doe V. Reed. Vol. 19. 983. 2011.