The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could have a major impact on the role of money in American politics. The case, known as Citizens United v. FEC, could allow unlimited amounts of money to flow into political campaigns. This could have a major impact on the outcome of elections, and some worry that it could lead to corruption.
Checkout this video:
The Problem
The current system of campaign finance in the United States is broken. It’s a system that’s been controlled by the wealthy and the well-connected for far too long, and it’s a system that allows them to buy elections and influence politicians.Money in politics is a problem because it allows the wealthy to have a disproportionate amount of influence over our political system.
The current state of money in politics
The current state of money in politics is that wealthy individuals and corporations have unprecedented power to influence elections and the policies of our government. In the past two years, we have seen a major increase in the amount of money being spent on elections, as well as the way that money is being spent.
This surge in spending is due to a series of Supreme Court decisions that have loosened the restrictions on how money can be used in politics. The most notable of these decisions is Citizens United v. FEC, which struck down a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law and allowed unlimited spending by corporations and other groups on elections.
Since Citizens United was decided in 2010, we have seen a dramatic increase in the amount of money being spent on elections, as well as the ways that this money is being spent. For example, we are now seeing more outside spending bygroups such as Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s, which are not required to disclose their donors. We are also seeing an increase in secret money being spent through these groups.
All of this spending has had a major impact on our democracy. It has led to a situation where a tiny minority of Americans – those with the most money – have an outsized influence on our elections and our government. This is not what our Founders intended, and it is not what we believe democracy should be about.
The effects of money in politics
The effects of money in politics are far-reaching and controversial. Some believe that money has too much influence on the political process, while others believe that money is essential to democracy.
Campaign finance reform is an ongoing effort to regulate the role of money in politics. The most recent major reform was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. The BCRA placed new restrictions on campaign finance, including banning soft money (unregulated donations from individuals, corporations, and labor unions) and limiting campaign ads.
The Supreme Court has been central to the debate over campaign finance reform. In 2010, the Court struck down key provisions of the BCRA in the Citizens United v. FEC case. The ruling opened the door for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent expenditures (ads that support or oppose a candidate, but are not directly coordinated with a campaign).
Critics argue that Citizens United has led to a dramatic increase in spending on elections, as well as a sharp increase in the influence of special interests. They say that the ruling has allowed a small number of wealthy individuals and organizations to have an outsize impact on elections. Supporters of Citizens United argue that it protects First Amendment rights and levels the playing field between incumbent politicians and challengers who do not have access to as much funding. They also argue that independent expenditures are not necessarily corruption, and that transparency laws can mitigate any potential for corruption.
The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the court of last resort. The court hears cases of national importance, such as those involving the interpretation of the Constitution.
The history of the Supreme Court and money in politics
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is made up of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, Justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are impeached and convicted by Congress.
The Court meets in Washington, D.C., in a building completed in 1935 known as the Supreme Court Building. Its law library is open to the public, as are oral arguments when they are not being televised.
The current Supreme Court and money in politics
The current Supreme Court has shown a willingness to allow more and more money into the political system. In the 2010 case of Citizens United v. FEC, the Court struck down federal laws that had limited corporate spending on elections. This decision opened the door for corporations and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates for office.
Since then, the Court has continued to chip away at campaign finance laws, making it easier for special interests to influence elections. In 2014, the Court struck down limits on how much individuals could contribute to all federal candidates in a single election cycle. And in 2015, the Court made it easier for millionaires and billionaires to give money to super PACs, which can spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates.
The current Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not interested in upholding laws that limit the role of money in politics. With several key campaign finance cases working their way through the courts, it is likely that we will see even more money flow into our elections in the years to come.
The Future
The Roberts Court has shown through a series of cases that it is increasingly willing to allow big money in politics. The most notable cases are Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC. In both cases, the Court ruled that restrictions on campaign spending violated the First Amendment. The Roberts Court has made it clear that it believes money is speech. This outlook could have major implications for the future of campaign finance.
Possible scenarios for the future of money in politics
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 unleashed a torrent of dark money into our political system. In the decade since, the Court has continued to chip away at restrictions on money in politics, most recently with its 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. With a conservative majority on the Court, it seems likely that even more money will pour into our elections in the years to come.
There are a few potential scenarios for how this could play out:
1) The Court could strike down any and all remaining limits on campaign spending, potentially allowing unlimited sums of money to flow into our elections.
2) The Court could uphold existing limits on campaign spending but allow corporations and other special interests to pour unlimited amounts of money into so-called “super PACs” which can then spend unlimited sums to support or oppose candidates.
3) The Court could take a more moderate approach, striking down some but not all limits on campaign spending, or allowing only limited amounts of corporate or special interest money into super PACs while still preserving some other restrictions.
No matter what the future holds, it’s clear that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has had a profound and negative impact on our democracy, and that further erosion of campaign finance laws is likely to occur in the years to come.
The best way forward for money in politics
There is no easy answer when it comes to the delicate question of money in politics. However, the Supreme Court has given some guidance on the matter in recent years. In its 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, the Court said that the government may not restrict political spending by corporations, unions, or other groups. This ruling led to a significant increase in outside spending in elections.
In its 2014 McCutcheon v. FEC decision, the Court struck down a key limit on how much an individual could contribute to candidates and committees in a single election cycle. This ruling allows wealthy donors to have an even greater influence in elections.
The best way forward for money in politics may be to allow more transparency and disclosure of where the money is coming from. This way, voters can make informed decisions about who to support. There should also be limits on how much money can be donated to prevent any one person or group from having too much influence.
