To what extent does Citizens United Threaten Democracy

Citizens United
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnL9YFLqwwM

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission that corporations and unions could not be banned from spending money on campaigns, stating that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights to speech as individuals, only in the form of campaign spending. Therefore, money is equivalent to speech and corporations are equivalent to people. However, with corporations being the powerful, influential figures they are, the power of unlimited spending becomes an issue since they dominate campaigns and shut out the outside opinions of the people, the ones who are actually supposed to determine the outcome of the election. With money, corporations can spend funding on various forms of campaigning, such as advertisements and voter registration, to persuade citizens to support their side. In an election, swing voters play a very significant role. Depending on which side they eventually choose to support, swing voters can essentially determine who wins an election, especially in the case of a very close election, such as the one between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. Theoretically, corporations basically have the power to control the election if they can spend all the money they want on campaigns.

In the first article, Perriello and Rosenbaum talk about the case limiting the voices of the people. It all starts with the corruption of the system. As donors provide funding to the candidates, they in return must also receive something. This could range from ensuring friends high political positions (spoils system) to using the money on a plan that benefits the donor. The second article, on the other hand, presented a completely different argument. Sherman stated the exact opposite, that money wasn't the biggest key factor since voting was and still is based on the judgement of the people, not through the persuasion techniques of a candidate.

However, I don't believe that money is the key to persuading people to be on your side. After all, “Money can buy many things, but not friendship”. Money can only do so much. At the end of the day, it's the voters and their opinions to decide the vote. As studies show, a majority of people who vote tend to range from ages of middle aged to senior. Such people do not change their ideals and positions very easily since years of supporting and growing up with them have embedded it deep into their values. In this case, the money spent on campaigning would be better aimed at persuading the young generations, who still have much to experience and hold immature, underdeveloped values that can still be changed. The only problem with this is that younger generations tend to have little interest in mature, or so called “boring”, topics such as politics, government, finance, or economy. Money does not necessarily threaten democracy since many Americans don't have much of any interest or objective in widely supporting it.

In addition, history has shown many cases where money fails to ensure everything. During the election between Romney and Obama, Romney had spent millions of dollars on campaigning, but still didn't get the position at the end. Likewise, money doesn't necessarily determine the winners and losers of a election. It may influence people's decision, but it doesn't necessarily restrict since voters are the ones who make the final call when casting their vote.

Bibliography

Perriello, Tom. Rosenbaum, Amy."Citizens United: Democracy for Sale".Politico.2012.Web.Dec. 15.2014.

Sherman, Paul."Citizen’s United Didn’t Kill Our Democracy".USA Today.2012.Web. Dec.15.2014.