November’s PRESIDENTIAL election is not only a test between two candidates but also a test of democracy. How much, really, does the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission undermine the electoral process?
Citizens United is the controversial 2010 decision that, by a 5-4 margin,struck down a number of federal campaign finance restrictions. The court concluded that not only did citizens individually have a right of free speech, but so did associations of citizens — meaning unions, non-profits, and, the ultimate bogeyman, corporations. And since they had those rights, significant limitations on speech — including restrictions on spending — were not allowed.
Comments
keane, exactly what electorate are you babbling about? or do you really think that what we have here in this formerly proud and great city and state qualifies as an electorate? ma
anyone that votes according to a TV commercial should stay home.
Tom the fact is one would hold that the public is uninformed and if the only information the public receives is from ads then they are in fact, well how else to put it, manipulated, dumb, not to bright, whatever you wish to call it. Citizens United allowed large entities whether it is corporations or unions or simply one man acting as a PAC to dominated the airways. That is how this citizenry communicates. Most do not do research, study the issues or the positions. They simplify. (NP) Yet, this is not what those of us who consider Citizen United undemocratic fear. What we fear is the logical extension of vast sums of money. Whether it is a corporation, a union or the Koch Bros. they do not spend vast sums of money and expect nothing in return. They expect to purchase the full power and authority of the federal government. In a country that is already split and purchased by various special interest groups this merely increases the splits to the size of fault lines. It was a bad decision, based upon bad thinking that in the end will net bad results for the country, whether it helps Dems. or Repubs. I could care less. What it doesn't help is the nation.
I think you're overestimating the public when you assuage the effectiveness that millions of dollars in ad buys will actually have. Empirical evidence has proven ads to be quite effective and if they weren't it would be news to political campaigns, not to mention the billion dollar ad industry. People have always been swayed by ads, persuading them buy the product – or in this case a candidate. And, need I remind you, advertisers have successfully persuade consumers or voters to buy into lots of products or candidates that don't work, are harmful, are a waste of money, or detrimental to your health. You also probably know that many people actually aren't able to make an intelligent decision based on facts. While others that are get their news and information in 30 second clips and often don't have the time to distill information to make a truly rational decision. That's what advertisers and campaigns count on. There are other ways to argue for Citizens United, but your assertions are specious.
Tom says the multi-billion ad industry is all for naught. Some deep thinking there. Studies have shown that greater amounts of campaign spending wins elections 94% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>> unions and nonprofits are for some reason exempt from their ire>>>>>> Unions and non-profits have NOWHERE NEAR the amounts of money available to corporations. As a result, the stars and stripes should be replaced by an exact copy of the dollar bill, because that's what will dictate policy.
Citizens United, rather than adjusting the scale to equilibrium as most campaign finance laws imperfectly attempted to do, tipped them dramatically toward those with the resources to drown out, anonymously, competing points of view and this is how the citizens are deprived of meaningful choice. It is no criticism of the electorate to say that it cannot consider available electoral choices and candidate positions if only candidates backed by large corporate resources can get their messages out. One can't vote for something one can't learn about. A candidate who believes that, in the interest of the whole community, corporations should be regulated and required to meet certain standards of conduct in dealing with the public is unlikely to get the support to present that case to the citizens effectively. Yet, much of the banking crisis and need for bailouts is a result of having removed just such regulations. Banks took the bailouts but don't want to put the safety regulations back. Banks have the money to support big campaigns. Those who would like to see some regulations restored do not have large organizations and resources behind them.
An unusually naive column from a newspaper writer. Apparently, he does not talk with a broad spectrum of people.
The Citizens United Decision is the Dred Scott Case of our time, no doubt. "We the People", has become "We the Corporate Elite". Money does, and always will influence elections. Citizens United has driven this point home. But our democracy has been in decline well before this controversial Supreme Court decision. This case has just shot the bullets into the cold body, but perhaps it can become a wakeup call for every American, that everyone's voice should be heard, and that the right to vote is a privilege not to be squandered. A true Democracy must be a participatory process. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "People get the Government that they deserve". And it was Benjamin Franklin that said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As Nations become more corrupt and vicious they have more need of masters". Citizens United has brought us closer to this precipice……
And here I was convinced by Fox News and many of the BDC commenters that socialism was just around the corner! Gee, I guess I'm easily duped. I was so excited for socialism to finally arrive, that I didn't notice the 1% corporate types silently take over the information pipeline. So, is the socialism threat still a vital scare tactic of the right, now that they've got all those SuperPACs and all that money?
**********And let's be honest here- Labor Unions did not need Citizen's United to spend MILLIONS on elections- AFSCME, 66 Million dollars , NEA 41 Million dollars, SEIU 38 Million dollars, IBEW, Teamsters, American Federation of Teachers, UAW and On and ON. OH don't forget ACTBLUE (Launched in 2004, ActBlue bills itself as "the online clearinghouse for Democratic action." As a federally registered political action committee, it serves as a conduit for online contributions to Democratic candidates and committees) they gave 66 MILLION.
"NHCabin" It really doesn't matter who buys the election, it remains bought. Regardless of who wins those who contribute millions of dollars expect something in return. It is not the money that is the problem it is what is expected for the money. This is what the SC somehow naively skipped over. No one wishes to muffle speech, they wish to recognize human nature.
Tom: When you and I were coming of age in 1980, the presidential campaign (primaries and general election) cost $161 million. This year we are talking about 2.5 to 3 billion. Give us a break.
If political ads don't work, why are billionaires pouring vast sums of money into them? Do you really think that they're that stupid? And why do companies spend tens of billions of dollars annually on TV ads if they don't work? Are you really that naive?