Does Citizens United Threaten Democracy?

Hard choices were made.

      Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission is the notorious case that AP US Government and Politics students face as yet another annoying civil liberties case to memorize. The case also makes American politics slightly more depressing for some people like me. Citizens United was a group that wanted to show a film called Hillary: The Movie in the 2008 primaries (to negatively portray Clinton) but would in the process break the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which said that corporations or labor unions could not fund ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before an election. The Supreme Court ruled in a split vote of 5:4 that corporations, labor unions, and associations could fund ads as long as they were not directly coordinated with the candidates. (Oyez.org, 1-5, 2014) As a result of the Citizens United decision, political spending on political candidates greatly increased. This case thus became the center of controversy regarding the regulation of money in politics versus the values of free speech to balance democracy.
        Professor Smith in "Citizens United: What You Probably Haven't Heard" seeks out the supporting side of the case by saying that corporations are still people and that they are, in essence, groups of individuals, thus deserving of the same rights. This relates to the claim that money is speech: When money is limited, e.g. to political campaigns, the freedom of speech is limited, meaning democracy is harmed.
        Professor Smith in his other video "Are Super PACs good for Democracy?" says that while Super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money, they do not give money directly to the candidates, thanks in part to the Citizens United decision. PACs, or Political Action Committees, are formed under the regulation of the FEC, or the Federal Elections Commission. The notion that Super PACs are independent workings that don't directly help or oppose political candidates was part of ideological basis for the Supreme Court ruling. Smith also points out that attack ads, which are often listed as negative creations from Citizens United, have been around since the nation's birth, citing Thomas Jefferson's personal attack on John Adams as "hermaphroditic". Another point Smith makes is that incumbents tend to have much more money and connections, meaning that Super PACs are required to help those with less money to balance out elections.
        In "Citizens United: Democracy for Sale", the argument is placed against Super PACs. The first point listed is that Super PACs are far from independent: an example is that of Restore our Future, known as Mitt Romney's Super PAC. The PAC is staffed by former Romney aids, and there tons of connections from people who help the PAC to people who help Romney. (Perriolli et. al, 4, 2012) This showcases the fact that a law preventing direct candidate assistance is in general very vague and filled with loopholes for candidates to get friends to help them. The second point listed is that Super PACs are spending more and more, meaning the influence of money could become the key decider of elections. Romney's Super PAC alone spent more than all other outside groups combined in the 2012 election. (Perriolli et. al, 5, 2012) The third point is that the people donating funds have direct financial interests in the outcome of the election results. The "carried tax interest loophole" is used by hedge fund managers to exempt them from a 35% income tax to pay a much lower 15% income tax. (Perriolli et. al, 6, 2012)
        In the last source, "Citizens United didn't kill our democracy", the argument is made that despite spending records being broken, the huge influx of money for candidates didn't actually help them much. Rather, it is said that voters still maintained their views, while candidates merely gained the opportunity to make themselves heard. Obama was still reelected, and the House and Senate were relatively unchanged. Casino magnate Adelson spent more than $53 million supporting eight Republican candidates, yet they all lost. (Sherman, 5, 2012) Next, the article says that money doesn't corrupt (woah). One study funded by Pew Charitable Trusts found that six of the best-governed states in the nation were all states that allowed unlimited corporate and union political spending. (Sherman, 7, 2012)
        I am dismayed by America's prevalence of attack ads and find that the indirect use of Super PACs by politicians is essentially politicians using a loophole in a vague and contradictory system. I thus go against the Citizens United decision and believe that American political campaigns should be limited in funding as a whole. This is because of the impractical nature of American political participation: Americans tend to vote for those they recognize, or see more on television. Another aspect of American political culture is the fact that media tends to focus more on candidates' personalities more than their actual ideologies. In 2004, The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made ads that had no factual standing but greatly harmed John Kerry's presidential campaign. American campaigns also run for much longer and with much more money spent than campaigns in any other country. This leads to an excess in spending. Money by itself is thus a key determinant in getting a person to become president. I think that corporations should not be allowed to fund political campaigns at all, lest they have too much influence on politics. Plus, most of the time they only care about their own profits. A democratic America must not let the campaigns take their own course, but go in a fair and meaningful direction.
       
Bibliography:
Oyez.org,. 'Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission | The Oyez Project At IIT Chicago-Kent College Of Law'. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2014. Web. 16 Dec. 2014.
Perriello, Tom and Rosenbaum, Amy. 'Opinion: Citizens United: Democracy For Sale'. POLITICO. Politico LLC, 29 May, 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2014.
Sherman, Paul. 'Column: 'Citizens United' Didn't Kill Our Democracy'. Usatoday.com, USA Today., 11 Nov, 2014. Web. 16 Dec. 2014.