Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a seminal case that can be used to demonstrate and prove how our educated judges in our courts can make rulings that do more harm than success. Since other predicaments have fallen on various races and classes in the United States, this case has left us with more questions than answers. In the United States, for example, votes are mainly the property of the elite. This proof may be derived from the amount of money expended by people during an election. As a result of our learned judges' ruling, the poor man is barred from running for any elective position in the world. The Supreme Court case has undermined democracy because the judgment has led to complete alienation of the have-nots from the lawmaking processes.
Summary of the case
The citizen united created an advertisement that was derogatory. The advertisement was aimed at Clinton who was one of the main contenders for the presidency. It was during the 2008 presidential race to the white house.
Synopsis of the law
The house could not ban a political speech on the ground that a speaker was a corporate entity.
Facts of the case
Citizen United was an NGO that boasted of a budget of $12 million us dollars which it obtained from other for-profit organizations. The organization created a 90 min documentary which was aimed at Clinton who was one of the main contenders in the presidential elections. The documentary urged the voters to vote against Hillary. In addition to the documentary, the organization went further to come up with short clips which they urged the citizens to subscribe to it.
The issue of conflict
The main issue in contention was whether the provisions of the law under section 441(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Act constitutional. The Act barred the advertisement produced by corporations which were meant to either support candidates in a federal election.
Arguments which were raised by the majority judges of the supreme court for allowing the appeal (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas)
The first ground was that blocking the independent spending amounts would amount to infringement of the right and freedom of speech that is provided under the first amendment. Secondly, the government cannot limit the spending of money in the political campaign on the ground of preventing corruption. The reason behind this decision is that not all money spent in the election comes from corruption. Thirdly, the first amendment protects everyone’s freedom of speech including the corporations. Finally, it should be noted that the citizens have a right to information. If the limits are enforced, then there will be the prevention of information form the citizens.
Reasons as to why the decision in United citizens case is termed as an enemy of democracy
Money in politics will lead to a society where it is only the rich who can be heard.
After the banning of the spending limit by the Supreme Court, a lot of money was introduced into politics. Our current political system has marginalized the poor in the society since politics has turned into a fight that the rich can only afford. The poor are not involved in the lawmaking processes. A perfect example can be extracted from the money raised for both Obama and Mitt Romney campaigns. There were fundraisers which led to the collection of about $313 us dollars. The donations came from all over America from about 4 million dollars with everyone contributing 200 dollars each. That donation was matched by only 32 donors to PACs, each one of the wealthy donors gave an average of 9.9 million dollars. In 2014, 100 people and their individuals contributed 37% of the money raised by the super PACs.
Secondly, the few rich people are becoming the gatekeepers. This shift resulted from the fact that the people have the highest chance of winning the elections are those who spend heavily. This characteristic in our election has led to a political system in which our leaders depend on the few rich individuals (Levitt, 1995). It also keys to note that it is the few rich individuals who may decide who will run and who will win. This system has coined our political system into a feud between the rich in the society. The have-nots have been alienated to spectator’s role in our political system, the best that they can do is to sit down and watch.
Thirdly, the big money dominance in politics has had impacts on elections of all levels (Abramowitz, 1991). For instance, Rex Sinquefield who was a multi-millionaire in Missouri used his wealth to influence the political landscape in that region. He manipulated the laws in his favor and benefit. After this case, the trend of using money is fast spreading to other independent bodies such as the judiciary. The trend will lead to an impartial judiciary that will be used to benefit the few rich elites in the society.
Fourth, a lot of money into politics has led to an unequal representation in all levels of life. It is an observation that 90% of positions in both the state and federal governments are comprised of the whites. The African American, Asian Americans, and Latinos are left to divide among themselves the remaining 10% of the remaining positions. The alienated group of people cannot make policies which can benefit them socially or economically due to their underrepresentation in the houses. According to Heather's “our unprincipled” and unrestrained big money in political system is a principal barrier preventing the best and the brightest from leading a democracy truly reflective of our diversity” (Heather, 2012)
Fifth, the decision that was arrived at by the Supreme Court has made the corporation more superior than the citizens. It is noted that the politicians will tend to make laws in favor of these organizations to encourage more funding. Furthermore, in decision making, the politicians will tend to consult the corporations instead of the citizens who are affected directly by that decision made.
There is an increase in the secret political spending
The spending of money that its source has not been discussed has been on the rise. Pandora box that was opened by the decision arrived at by the court in citizen United’s case. Most of the money spent in the political campaigns is dark money; it is the failure on the part of the law making the body that has failed to come up with laws which would compel these bodies from hiding their donors. It was dazzling when it was found out that about 1bn dollars had been spent on the campaign. The money that was spent could not be linked to a specific source. The decision reached by the court did not do any good, but instead, it did more harm to our political system. The donors due to their financial muscles may decide to cloud or mislead the citizens. This outcome can be achieved by using loads of money that they possess. Also, secrecy of donors has led to money laundering in our society since the money launders are sure of the secrecy of their identities.
Solutions to restore democracy back into our society
First, the precedent that was set in united citizen’s case should be eliminated to enable the governmental bodies to set the expenditure ceiling to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity when seeking an elective position. The positions should not be solely left to the few elite rich who can afford to spend a lot of money in their campaigns.
Second, laws which compel the organization to give the identity of their donors should be passed. This provision will prevent the donation of money that has been obtained from illegal ways such as drug dealing, corruption, and laundering from being donated. In addition to that, the judiciary should not accept any monetary gifts from people. This restriction is to ensure that the judiciary is not be compromised by wealthy individuals. Finally, the voters should base their choice on education, trustworthiness, and ability instead of the wealth. Those individuals who are elected to the house on their capability and not money tend to work hard for the best interest of the electorate. Leaders who are biased should never be re-elected back to the house.
Conclusion
It is with great disappointment when institutions presumed to be the shield of the weak are being converted into spears to kill the protected people. The court in this scenario was used as a sword by the few wealthy people to harm the poor. Without having a ceiling of expenditure in the political system is encouraging discrimination among the population. The few rich individuals tend to arm-twist the laws into their by ensuring that one of their own is part and parcel of the political system. This act will lead to a polarized society which may explode into a civil war. The judge should have thrown out the Aibileen initio to avoid the current statement being a witness in every election year. The voters should not base their voting on color or race, but instead, they should elect their leaders by the ability to work for the majority of the citizens.
Reference
Heather c. McGhee, Forward “starched deck: How the racial bias in our big money political
system undermines our democracy and our economy (2012)books.google.com
SD Levitt, “using repeat challenges to estimate the effect of campaign spending on election
outcome in the US House.” journal of political economyjournals – (1994) -uchicago.edu
Al Abramowitz, “incumbency, campaign, spending and the decline of competition in US
House elections. The journal of politics-(1991) -uchicago.edu
