 "Photo: N/A")
“It overturned previous precedents, and made a mockery of our Constitution," said Junior political science major Tilton Fifield.“The decision was based on the already precarious and disputed idea of corporate personhood.”
The court case of Citizens United v. Federal Commission was a landmark 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court. It resulted in the recent decision that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in the elections can’t be limited because it is not compliant with the First Amendment.
This all began with a non-profit corporation Citizens United’s case before the court regarding whether the group’s film about Hillary Clinton could be defined as a campaign advertisement under the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The act prohibited broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of general election and any such ad paid for by a corporation. The act also didn’t allow national political party committees to raise or spend money not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races.
It is absolutely atrocious that corporations will be allowed to give unlimited amounts toward federal campaigns. This will most certainly result in the muffling of the average American’s voice. Corporations should not be granted the equal rights of an individual.
“As if voters were not bombarded enough, they will now have to make sense of an unlimited number of issue ads that may mislead and at the very least, polarize the candidates,” said Fifield. “I think this decision undermines the integrity of the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be above the rat race that is politics.”
President Obama reprimanded the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address saying that, “The Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
“We are moving to an age where we won’t have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America,” said Executive Director Melanie Sloan on the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) website.
It most definitely is not a comforting feeling knowing that the next president could be backed by Pepsi and the governor could be sponsored by Doritos. “Corporations don’t want what the people want,” said Payton Baughman, freshman history major. “Usually what corporations want has a negative effect on everyone else.”
Worse, this opens the door for foreign influence on our elections. Foreign corporations will be allowed to give money to support campaigns based on their own interest, not the best interest of America.
Be the first to comment on this article!