Corporate Money and politics

The legal changes within campaign financing have contributed greatly to the influence of direct elections within the past decade.  Eduardo Porter of the New York times states, ” In 2007, the Supreme Court blew aside spending restrictions (weak as they were) by ruling that corporations, unions and other groups could spend unlimited amounts up to Election Day on “issue” ads that mentioned a candidate’s name, as long as they did not explicitly urge a “vote for” or “vote against” a candidate.” As if that wasn’t enough, one major change was made with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision which eliminated the spending restriction on campaign ads that endorsed or opposed certain candidates. Money from outside groups increased tremendously, while party spending decreased. How disastrous can this be for American Democracy? Probably more than we even know or have come to terms with

When the 2002 McCain-Feingold law put an end to the unlimited “soft money”, supporters found other ways to channel in money towards the elections. Rick Perry’s supporters, for instance, have created a group called Make Us Great Again, which is eager to get him to win the Republican presidential nomination; eager enough to spend up to $55 million. Unions and other supporters are doing everything they can to keep money flowing into independent groups. These groups are called Super PAC’S and they are undoubtedly playing a large role on the share of money that is being poured into elections altogether.

The Supreme Court made a decision based on the First Amendment free speech principles. The Justices Black, Douglas and Warren wrote,

“Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesman. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important — vitally important — that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.”

With this said, Dissenters feel as though the unlimited amounts of corporate money will corrupt democracy and I feel as though it quite possibly can do so. The unlimited amount of money is going to give candidates more power than they deserve within the election. Many corporations will choose to overly editorialize certain candidates, blinding the public from the real truth. Why? Because they have the backing to do so.  The wealthy will seemingly have the power over the election. They will fund the candidate to their liking and the not so wealthy groups will be left out in the cold because they can’t afford to fund in the same way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/opinion/sunday/how-the-big-money-finds-a-way-in.html?_r=1&ref=campaignfinance