The Supreme Court's decision in the case of
Citizen's United vs. FEC (Federal Election Commission) has had a significant
impact on how money factors into our elections.
It is important because it changed the rules on who could contribute
money to political campaigns and how much money they can give. Before this decision politicians were only
allowed to receive a limited amount of money from private donors and none from
corporations or unions. In the aftermath of this decision huge amount of corporate
money flooded in to our campaigns. According to, the Los Angeles Times, in 2010
over $468 million dollars came into the presidential election, with over $288
million spent on ad attacking President Obama. These Super Pac’s, set up to help solicit donations
from unions, groups, organizations, and corporations, were the source of the
majority of this money. Super Pac ‘s can’t support a candidate individually and
what’s important about Super Pac’s is
that the law requires them to have a “quite loose”, which means that the donors don’t have to identify themselves or
how much they donated. This court
decision made cooperation’s play the same role as an individual would in our
political system.

Most conservatives believe that this decision was a
good thing and that corporations should be able to contribute as much money as
they want. They believe that this is
just an exercise in free speech. They
believe that corporations are the same as people. It should not matter who gives the money. Supporters feel as though the Super PACs are
good for the democracy because they believe that in a free and fair election
anybody or anything should be able to bring as much influence as they want.
This goes along with their general belief that government should be involved as
little as possible in the decisions that people make.

Most liberals believe that this is a dangerous
thing. If corporations can spend as much
money as they want on campaigns then they can drown out the voices of the
people and buy the elections for their candidates. People who see decision as dangerous fear that
once this large amount of money gets into the system elected official will
become so depended on it that they will stop listening to the regular voter. Opponents also believe that corporations will
always fund the “Pro-business” candidates. Another point that opponents make is that this
will make it very easy for the airwaves to be flooded with negative advertising. Rather than president voters with fact, they
will just hit us with 30-second commercials telling us why the candidate they
oppose is evil.
In my opinion corporations can spend as much money as they
want on campaigns. However, these big
companies should not expect that if the candidate they supported wins that,
they are entitled for any favors back. Now
that they got the candidate in office, the politicians should see that the
cooperation’s are taxed fairly. I fall
into the category of people that don’t have the money to support a campaign,
but in my opinion, my vote should count as well. Just because the rich people have,
the money to support a campaign they feel as though they should have control
over the office holder. If that is the
case the rich would be in control of whoever is in office and the decisions
that they make. There should be rules
and they should be clear “YOU CAN DONATE MONEY BUT DON’T EXPECT ANY FAVORS
BACK”.