nightmare for democracy or super PAC's

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is responsible for implementing the personhood of corporations, granting them the right to manipulate American peoples' decisions through elections; therefore, it interferes with people's position in government by restricting who they can select to serve and represent them by making political decisions; however, first, limiting the influence of super PACs by legislation. and secondly, the presence of restrictive laws on campaign finance does not have an impact on election results unless if the restrictions come after the absence of those limits.

The political landscape of the United States is seen as unchanged for many years with bipartisanism still strongly upheld by the American people. As such it is considered as a highly democratic country setting the stands for democracy across the whole world (Kochen, 2016). Most of the Americans thrive from on the international stage sprouts from their virtue of being democratic. The ideals of democracy are quite recognizable even for outsiders as they seek to emulate the largest role model of democracy. An ideal democracy is whereby power rests in the hands of the citizens so that the majority has power while the minority groups are given favorable consideration. The people exercise their role in democracy by voting during elections which are free and fair. Therefore, candidates struggle to ‘sell’ their manifesto through campaigns in an effort to convince the citizens to provide them secure offices to serve and represent the people.

Some of the citizens who deem themselves too responsible would take part directly or indirectly in the campaign process working to promote certain candidates or de-campaign the opposition independently. What appears to be absurd is the treatment of corporations as the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission allows people to influence elections results (Briffault, 2010). The most basic argument that can be pitted against the above case law is that the constitution is charged with the responsibility of protecting the people. Proponents of democracy believe that people are sane enough to make right decisions during elections. The modern day concept of super political action committees does not give people the chance to reach voter decisions on their own hence influencing electoral results. From a critical purview, voter influence brought about by independent corporations appears to limit democracy whereby it leaves the people powerless to make decisions. It has even been suggested that it is a breeding ground for corruption.

Background

Citizens United is a non-profit conservative organization (Hasen, 2011). However, the term is often used to refer to the United States Supreme Court Case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission of 2010. The term will be used interchangeably to refer to the two in this paper. The case was about the limits of spending during campaigns

Citizens United sought to broadcast a movie criticizing Hilary Clinton and it was to be advertised on television just before the Democratic Party’s primary elections in 2008 where Clinton was a presidential aspirant (Spencer & Wood, 2014). Such actions were not in line with the law as there was a federal statute that barred particular campaigning communications when an election was close. The US Supreme court established that the provisions of the law prohibiting unions and corporations from campaigning were against the US constitution. The constitution upholds freedom of speech and the government is not allowed to limit independent political campaign finance by a not-for-profit organization (Gerken, 2013). Sponsors of advertisements are to publicly disclose financing details as upheld by the court through its decision. However, direct sponsorship of political aspirants through political parties and campaigns by unions and corporations was a federal ban that was not changed.

According to La Raja and Schaffner (2014), proponents of political believe that a limit on corporations’ political expenditure is justified as the most effective way of preventing their influence of on state leadership and federal governance. The courts’ move to allow for unlimited political expenditure by unions and corporations on campaigns through the Citizens United vs. Federal Election implies that such organizations have been given a wide opportunity to influence America’s political landscape. The people campaigned for are likely to take office and the policies that will be made will probably favor the Super PACs (Epstein, 2011). Critics of the law were alarmed by the court’s decisions and expressed their concerns on the possible devastating effects it could have on democracy. This is surely evident in the several editorials published by New York Times editors’ guild labelling Citizens United as a “radical decision, which strikes the heart of democracy” (Dworkin, 2010). As Hasen (2010) points out, lack of limits on campaign finance has tremendous negative effect on democracy whereby American politics will be distorted by corporate wealth.

Are Spending Bans Justified

The impact of nullification of campaign expenditure bans has raised justified concerns due to the potential impact unlimited spending could have on the political climate. La Raja and Schaffner (2014) stated that the general postulation from critics is that limiting campaign finance is relatively the most efficient way to ensure the political impact of corporations on policies and politics is restricted. Much of the research presented on campaign expenditure pays attention to the impact of aspirants spending on the results of congressional elections without giving recognition to union and corporate expenses. Therefore, the people’s knowledge on the usefulness of laws regulating political campaign fence is relatively minimal. Addressing closely the effects of contribution limits to US political aspirants tends to make scholars fail to pay attention to the effect of spending bans on nationwide political consequences.

It cannot be disagreed that limiting corporate political expenditure on campaigns can have many tremendous effects for the benefit of public policy formulation as well as elections conduct. Thus, it should be noted that laws prohibiting political campaign finance by corporations affect election results (Werner, & Coleman, 2015). The democratic system dwells on elections for its prosperity whereby people get the opportunity to make fundamental political decisions affecting the whole nation. The questions that is likely to be posed to challenge the validity of spending bans is whether prohibition of unrestricted campaign finance influences the number of votes an aspirant gets and the party that triumphs during an election. Before elections are held political candidates have a chance to meet people across the nation in various states stipulating what they intend to do if given the opportunity to lead the people. In such cases, the candidates are often sponsored by their respective political parties.

It should be noted that the Citizens United is a court decision that changed everything with respect to corporate political campaign finance (Werner, & Coleman, 2015). Before the 2010 case, American states had the power to regulate the involvement of corporations and unions in elections. States could allow for unrestricted campaign expenditure by corporations in an effort to sway election results for state offices. Therefore, independent groups could rally campaigns advocating for or against certain individuals running for office with the states.

La Raja and Schaffner (2014) stated that before the Citizens United case era, about 28 of the American states authorized independent campaign expenditures by corporations. From their findings it is apparent that “…many of the states that did have corporate and/or spending bans in place prior to the 2010 decision had enacted those bans during a period for which we have political data” (p. 103). Variation at state-level is useful for comparing the election results before and after the limit were put in place.

La Raja and Schaffner (2014) tried to determine the efficiency of political campaign spending laws while paying attention to regulations that restrict interest groups from spending. Perceiving the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee as an exceedingly provocative Supreme Court case, it was established to be capable of influencing local, state, and national elections (Epstein, 2011). It is also evident that corporations exhibit their partisan alignment in their political preferences yet there no restrictions to prevent parties from controlling elected representatives and inescapable advantages in elections. What is quite interesting is that restrictions on spending were found to have minimal or no effect on the results. La Raja and Schaffner stated that the reason why corporations are willing to spend more and more is to achieve particular political objectives.

A tool that has had a large impact on people’s perceptions during elections is the media. It is the widely used platform on which super PACs connect with the people (Hardy et al., 2014). By virtue of lacking restrictions on their expenditures, unions and corporations are able to buy airtime where they engage potential voters. The PACs fight to campaign for or against certain individuals. Since the interest groups have partisan preference it is easier for them to campaign for or against particular individuals with regard to party affiliations. The law labels the groups as independent but since they have potential impact on election results there is no way they cannot support formulation and policies that favor their activities. This implies that the unions and corporations have the loudest voice that swallows the people’s voice yet they are a just a wealthy minority. People contribute to Super PACs due to the belief that they are promoting views held by the people such as conservatism regardless of how what other people in the state believe (Epstein, 2011). As such, marginalized groups are likely to be overshadowed in contrast to the ideals of democracy.

Impact of Restricted Political Campaign Finance on Election Results

Attempts to keep labor unions and corporate money separated from politics of the nation have been successful for many years even though there are times when certain states did allow for unlimited campaign expenditure. Before the Citizens United was decided unions and corporations were protected by the constitution’s provisions on freedom of speech. As such the groups could take part in several activities such as mobilizing voters and issuing advocacy to impact elections (Coates 660). A number of strategies are employed in an effort to enable interest groups to affect cumulative electoral results.

Restricted spending does not influence election results unless if corporations and unions are looking to impact electoral results through their expenditures whereby they have the capability of influencing the outcomes only if the restrictions are absent. Generally, it is expected for Super PACs to affect electoral candidates’ success in securing office and political parties to gain the majority of the available votes. In most cases, the objectives of the PACs are in line with certain political parties hence it is expected for their campaign finance to have one-sided outcomes. According to La Raja and Schaffner (2014, p. 104) “…there is some evidence that corporations tend to hedge their contribution strategies by giving to incumbents, regardless of party, to ensure that they get sympathetic votes for specific pieces of legislation.’’ However, it should be noted that, in open election races there is a tendency of labor unions to favor Democrats while corporations support Republicans. Therefore, it is easy to point out that both unions and corporations desire to affect the election results in order to favor the respective parties they are aligned with.

The above mentioned interest groups (unions and corporations) often are clear in showing which side they are supporting or opposing, especially for the case of aspiring politicians. La Raja and Schaffner (2014, p 104) stated that “Indeed, we know that corporations tend to support incumbents with their campaign contributions because they are primarily interested in gaining access to policymakers.” This means that they provide funding for political candidates so as to establish a relationship with the lawmakers. The bigger picture indicates that if interest groups were to be restricted from political involvement then other political aspirants facing financial constraints will benefit greatly but deservingly (Torchinsky, & Reese, 2016). As mentioned earlier on, the groups formulate strategies to ensure the success of their cause. Since they exhibit preference for a certain party and its ideologies, they are likely to forgo their desired policy results just to remain in line with larger status of the preferred party. Therefore, they can possibly risk their support for contestant from the opposition including when they are concurrently supporting officials from both of the parties deemed open to their foundations.

What is quite clear from the arguments in the above paragraph is that restricting campaign expenditure by interest groups will affect contestants negatively. The general purview held by unions and corporations is that the candidates they pick to support are of the highest quality hence have a big chance of succeeding and the several officeholders they support are unlikely to fail (Torchinsky, & Reese, 2016). It can be concluded that Super PACs have an election tactic which they seek to pursue with contestants while they lay down access stratagem with successful officeholders (Sherman, 2015). Therefore, limiting campaign finance is capable of excessively influencing races that have worthwhile contestants hence escalating the gains of officeholders in the races.

Therefore, it appears like political campaign expenditure transform to votes as perceived by unions and corporations. Unions are willing to use their finances to support Democrats while corporations do not give a second though to promoting Republican contestants in their campaigns. According to Raja and Schaffner (2014, p 104) “… for corporate or union spending to matter it is not enough that these entities spend on behalf of their preferred party’s candidates”. Political campaign finance influences election results but excessive expenses lead to diminishing returns with respect to the results. When aspirants spend sparingly on campaigns they are likely to have tremendous positive results but further expenditure has minimal results.

Superfluous campaign spending is completely unreasonable since the returns do not match the output since once the maximum level is reached less votes are won (Raja and Schaffner (2014). Therefore, it is unlikely for unrestricted expenditure of interest groups to have a significant impact on the election results. Furthermore, labor unions and corporations are keen to spend campaign finances in competitive contests in which their expenditure promises to influence the results. Those high profile races attract a lot of attention and interest hence corporations, political parties, and aspirants are willing to spend excessively (Torchinsky, & Reese, 2016). Campaign finance and electoral results could be effective for interest groups if there existed a linear connection between the two factors hence justifying their efforts of unlimited campaign finance. It is totally pointless to invest funds where other individuals (being supported) have already heavily invested and expect to get the same or more results. Since such kind of expenditure has little impact on the election results, it unlimited spending is unreasonable.

Conclusion

If interest groups desire to have a big impact on electoral results through unlimited expenditure, their efforts are likely to be fruitless as the effect of their spending is believed to be very limited. As such, a significant variation is not expected to be observed between states in which restrictive laws are present and those in which they are not. As much as it is speculated that such restrictions are likely to have fewer outcomes with respect to possible winners, it should be understood that when the limits are not in place election results will be affected significantly. However, marginal the spending might look it is highly capable of influencing elections results such that the outcome is clearly observable on the benefits rendered to state incumbents and partisans if independent political campaign finance is legalized.





Annotated Bibliography

A: Thesis

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is responsible for introducing the personhood of corporations giving them power to influence American peoples’ decisions during elections, thus it interferes with people’s role in democracy whereby they are limited on who to choose to serve and represent them when they make electoral decisions; yet, first, limiting the influence of super PACs through restricting campaign finance is best suited in ensuring free and fair elections for aspirants facing financial constraints as well as formulation of policies that favor the people rather than action interest groups; and secondly, presence of restrictive laws on campaign finance does not have an impact on election results unless the restrictions come after the absence of those limits.

B: Annotated Bibliography

Hasen, R. L. (2011). Citizens United and the illusion of coherence. Michigan Law Review, 109 (4), 581-623.

Summary: This article presents a critique of the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission stating that that law not only extends beyond the loud proclamation of an absolutist dream of the First Amendment but also provides for corporations to spend large amount of finances autonomously to oppose or support election candidates. It revisits some of the previous court opinions to show how coherence was imposed by the majority’s view of campaign finance jurisprudence. The paper places Citizens United in the campaign finance jurisprudence which came preceded it while providing a detailed description of the key opinions in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. It also provides an explanation of how incoherence of campaign finance jurisprudence is set to arise from Court’s analysis of the case. The article also presents the challenges lawyers are likely to face from the incoherence while arguing in courts on campaign finance cases.

Credibility: Hasen is a lawyer and the Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. He has written several books and articles on election law and jurisprudence. The article is available courtesy of Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship repository. Michigan Law Review is a peer-reviewed journal.

Relevance: The article primarily tackles the understanding of the Citizens United case law as well as campaign finance which are key parts of my paper.



La Raja, R. J., & Schaffner, B. F. (2014). The effects of campaign finance spending bans on electoral outcomes: Evidence from the states about the potential impact of Citizens United v. FEC. Electoral Studies, 33, 102-114.

Summary: The paper presents an understanding of the effects of campaign finance laws on electoral results. The Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is revisited to show how bans on cooperate and union political expenditure were eliminated by the Supreme Court, thus the article seeks to find out if the bans cause electoral results that are significantly different from where the bans are not present in the electoral system. It looks at two crucial electoral subtleties in that the bans are capable of affecting: the bigoted power balance and the triumphs of officeholders. It makes use of historical data collected from 1968 to 2009 to evaluate the effect of ban on corporate expenditure during different periods. From the outcomes, it is established that bans on spending indicate limited impacts on elections results.

Credibility: La Raja and Schaffner are both fellows at the University of Massachusetts. Both have prior experience as authors in the field of political science, particularly electoral studies. Electoral Studies is a scholarly journal that specializes on electoral issues. The article is available online at Elsevier.

Relevance: This article is relevant to my topic since it addresses political campaign finance and focusses on the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission which will strongly feature in my paper.



Kochen, M. (2016). The need for campaign finance deregulation. Political Analysis, 18(1), 7.

Summary: The paper highlights the need for removal of laws governing campaigns expenditure. It portrays that it is necessary to financing campaigns as it is directly related to your success in the elections. The finance rates you use determine the end results. It reveals how much US Presidential candidates raised and received from corporations to cater for their campaigns. However, the Supreme Court justifies it is decision by concluding that it will curb corruption in electoral processes.

Credibility: Kochen is a political analyst and works with Seton Hall University. The article has been of great significance in pointing out figures on the expenditure of Super PAC's in campaigns.

Relevance: The bottom line of the article is advocacy for deregulation of campaign finance to enhance citizens express their views freely. This goes hand in hand with my work as it is calling out for the same.



Sherman, G. (2015). Campaign finance makes America go “round”: Individual campaign contributions and the effects of Citizens United on the American Election System.

Summary: the article analyses the financial contribution of individuals during campaign and also the impact of Citizens United on the Electoral System of America. It deduces that male above 55 years of age who are learned and earn high incomes contribute the largest percentage of individual donations. On the contrary, Citizens United has does not hold much volume of the funding as most people thought.

Credibility: Sherman is a political analyst. The findings of this article are as a result of an extensive research he undertook. He works at Chapman University in California, Department of Political science.

Relevance: The article is closely related to my work as it highlights The Passage of Citizens United and its effects on Election process of America which covers a segment of my topic of work.



Werner, T., & Coleman, J. J. (2015). Citizens United, independent expenditures, and agency costs: Reexamining the political economy of state antitakeover statutes. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 31(1), 127-159.

Summary: The article takes a closer look at the campaign expenditures as effected by banning laws. It examines the lawfulness of independent expenditures as well as the government’s restrictions on campaign finance within the United States. It looks at how the government can came up with restrictive laws to bar corporate expenditures before the Citizens United era. It states that the prohibition creates competitiveness during elections.

Credibility: Werner is an Assistant Professor of Business at University of Texas Macombs School of Business. Coleman is a professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin. Both authors have written authoritative articles in their respective fields. The paper was presented at the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies.

Relevance: The paper is about the economic aspects of Citizens United showing the cost of Independent expenditures. This goes in line with the topic of my paper which is political campaign finance focusing on Super PACs and Citizens United.



Spencer, D. M., & Wood, A. K. (2014). Citizens United, states divided: an empirical analysis of independent political spending. Ind. LJ, 89, 315.

Summary: The article focuses on the division of states as an establishment of the analysis of independent political expenditure.

Credibility: Spenser is Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of Connecticut while Abby Wood is Assistant Professor of Law, University of Southern California. Both are highly qualified professionals whose works are highly reliable sources in the field of Law.

Relevance: The content of this article is very useful to the paper I am tackling as it's providing more information hence building my work.



Epstein, R. A. (2011). Citizens United v. FEC: The constitutional right that big corporations should have but do not want. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 34, 639.

Summary: this paper explores the Supreme Court's decision on the Citizen United vs FEC case that triggered a controversial public debate whether if corporations are entitled to participation in political affairs as per their wishes or not. It also discusses the feedback received from various commentators including the former President, Barrack Obama, expressing their displeasure on the Court's decision. From their opinion, it seems that corporations have been granted authority hence controlling political processes at the expense of locals.

Credibility: Epstein is a legal author who is known for his writings and studies on various topics including Law and Business. He is a Professor of Law and director of Liberal Institute at the New York University. His writings have extensively influenced modern America legal thought.

Relevance: This article focuses on the constitutional right of big corporations hence very resourceful to my topic



Briffault, R. (2010). Corporations, corruption, and complexity: Campaign finance after Citizens United. Cornell JL & Pub. Pol'y, 20, 643.

Summary: This article takes a look on the banning of an existing federal law which restricts corporations from financing campaigns. It also brings up a critical aspect which states that corporations have the right to participate in electoral advocacy.

Before the establishment of Citizens United, the Supreme Court authorized corporations to spend as much as they could to support their candidates. At that time, the issue of corporate money had not received much attention, unlike currently. However, Citizens United would like to be made clear the difference between expenditures and contribution.

Credibility: The article qualified to be included in the Cornell Journal of Law following its approval by an authorized administrator. It can also be accessed online courtesy of Cornell Law.

Relevance: the paper addresses upcoming laws by the Supreme Court to regulate Citizens United in financing elections which is closely related to the topic that I am working on.

Hardy, B. W., Gottfried, J. A., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2014). Stephen Colbert's civics lesson: how Colbert Super PAC taught viewers about campaign finance. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 329-353.

Summary: The article addresses the influence of The Colbert Report on people’s American people’s understanding of Super PACs. It attempts to establish how the understanding has been instrumental in shaping audience discernment on the effect of finance in politics. The paper analyses a sample of adults from all over the nation after the 2012 presidential election to determine how The Colbert Report elevated their understanding and perception on Super PACs. The paper established that the show was more successful in enlightening the audience on the Super PACs than other news media.

Credibility: Hardy is Ph.D. holder and a senior researcher at University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. The research he conducts focuses on political campaign, among other disciplines in political science. Gottfried is a Research Associate at the Pew Research Center and works with both the Journalism Project and the Center for the People and the Press. He has conducted research on election campaigns and other subjects in political science. Winneg is the Managing Director of Survey Research at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center. He conducts research on political participation and political communication. Mass Communication and Society is a scholarly journal since it is peer review and can be accessed online from Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Relevance: The article addresses the general society’s understanding of super PACs. It is useful in my paper for looking at how Americans understand the role and impact of money in politics.

Gerken, H. K. (2013). The real problem with Citizens United: campaign finance, dark money, and shadow parties. Marq. L. Rev., 97 (4), 903-923.

Summary: The article is speech given by the author during the Boden Lecture at the Marquette University Law School. It offers the authors observations on the law governing political campaign finance as well as the impact it has on American politics in order to stimulate critical thinking. It addresses how Citizens United has influenced the politics of the nation.

Credibility: Gerken is a J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Marquette Law Review is a respected journal deemed credible as it is published by the Marquette University Law School.

Relevance: The article addresses the demerits of Citizens United campaign funding. It is useful in getting information about the role of money in politics with respect to campaign finance.





References

Briffault, R. (2010). Corporations, corruption, and complexity: Campaign finance after Citizens United. Cornell JL & Pub. Pol'y, 20, 643.

Coates, I. V., & John, C. (2012). Corporate politics, governance, and value before and after Citizens United. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(4), 657-696.

Dworkin, R., 2010. The “devastating” decision. New York Review of Books. Editorial, 2010. The court’s blow to democracy. New York Times. January 22.

Epstein, R. A. (2011). Citizens United v. FEC: The constitutional right that big corporations should have but do not want. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 34, 639.

Gerken, H. K. (2013). The real problem with Citizens United: campaign finance, dark money, and shadow parties. Marq. L. Rev., 97 (4), 903-923.

Hardy, B. W., Gottfried, J. A., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2014). Stephen Colbert's civics lesson: how Colbert Super PAC taught viewers about campaign finance. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 329-353.

Hasen, R. L. (2011). Citizens United and The Illusion of Coherence. Michigan Law Review, 109 (4), 581-623.

Kochen, M. (2016). The Need for Campaign Finance Deregulation. Political Analysis, 18(1), 7.

La Raja, R. J., & Schaffner, B. F. (2014). The effects of campaign finance spending bans on electoral outcomes: Evidence from the states about the potential impact of Citizens United v. FEC. Electoral Studies, 33, 102-114.

Sherman, G. (2015). Campaign Finance Makes America Go ‘Round: Individual Campaign Contributions and the Effects of Citizens United on the American Election System.

Spencer, D. M., & Wood, A. K. (2014). Citizens United, states divided: an empirical analysis of independent political spending. Ind. LJ, 89, 315.

Torchinsky, J., & Reese, E. (2016). State Legislative Responses to Citizens United: Five Years Later. Syracuse L. Rev., 66, 273-287.

Werner, T., & Coleman, J. J. (2015). Citizens United, independent expenditures, and agency costs: Reexamining the political economy of state antitakeover statutes. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 31(1), 127-159.