In 2018, the politically inclined populous of the United States is glued to their televisions twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s potential interreference in the 2016 Presidential Election of Donald Trump has drawn our focus away from the everyday strife and struggle of governing. Every miniscule detail is blown out of proportion and headlined as breaking news, only to be replaced an hour later. However, I am going to shock the world with this claim; Our countries political systems have been corrupted since before November 8, 2016.
Gerrymandering and the electoral college are just two of the systems that require tremendous reform in order to create a democracy that works for the citizens. For this blog, I will focus on how money from large corporations has dismantled the level playing field that our founding fathers once dreamed of when they constructed the American experiment. Money, and everything that comes with it, has led to our politicians refocusing our priorities on the wealthy. Wealthy Americans have fundamentally different needs than the average joe who works as a paper salesman. Many benefit from the elimination of regulations that protect the environment, or that protect worker’s rights. They all benefit from lucrative tax breaks as well.
To introduce this blog, I will be looking at the most influential Supreme Court case of our lifetime. One that requires a constitutional amendment to overturn. The January 21, 2010 ruling of Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission.
If you are on Facebook, you may have seen your super liberal neighbor or Aunt mention this in a rant you did not read. However, it is very important to understand the repercussions of this case and how it has affected politics today.
In 2007, the nonprofit organization, whose mission statement is to fight for “limited government, individual responsibility, free market economy, and traditional American values,” wanted to air a documentary they had made entitled “Hillary, The Movie.” It had the intent of hurting the front-runner for the democratic party in hopes of forcing the victory of a less experienced candidate, Barack Obama, that would be easier for Republicans to defeat in the general election. However, federal law- the “McCain- Feingold” act to be exact- prohibited such an airing of the movie because it was set to air within thirty days of a primary, produced by a corporation (Citizens United Productions) and mentioned a candidate’s name.
When the case against the FEC was taken to the Supreme Court, the case that was argued did not focus on this specific movie alone or the regulations that kept them from airing the film. Citizens United argued that spending money is a form of speech, and that regulating money spent by corporations is a violation of the first amendment. The court controversially ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United, thus opening the floodgates of money into the electoral system.
This ruling is puzzling for a number of reasons. First of all, the ruling overturns many cases that were focused on the electioneering. According to the dissenting opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the ruling went against entire rulings or parts of the following cases: FEC vs. National Right to Work Comm, Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, FEC vs. Wisconsin Right to Life, McConnell v. FEC , FEC v. Beaumont , FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, NRWC, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC.
Furthermore, Justice Stevens’s ninety (!) page dissenting opinion, argued that the argument was not for constitutionality of their case, but the ability to change law. He writes “Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to.”
If you’ve made it to this point- and I would not blame you for falling asleep- you will have experienced how incredibly unsexy this topic is. But that’s what democracy is: unsexy. We as Americans argue about abortion, confederate statues, or legalizing marijuana. I hate to break it to you, but that does nothing for our country but further divides us. True democracy takes getting on your knees and ripping the weeds out of the ground, and when was the last time you had a smile on your face while weeding?
Sources
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html
Monetary corruption (is that redundant?) is one of the many big problems with our government, and Citizens United is the embodiment of that issue. I’m both excited and nervous to read about all the ways our government is run by money. The last paragraph was awesome. The pulling weeds metaphor was too accurate and described the painstaking process really well, and the description of democracy as “unsexy” was accurate (if a little unconventional) and definitely ended the piece on a different note.
Eric,
This is really well written and brings to light some issues that people don’t really want to talk about but know that they should. I lot of people like to blame everything wrong with the government on Trump, but I think we have to realize (and even I don’t want to admit it), that it might not all be Trump’s doing. I’m interested to read your next blog!
One sentence your wrote really resonated with me: the fact that our political system was broken way before the resent election day. While being angered by the recent election is a rightful feeling, completely blaming the state of American politics on merely just that one event is not logical. I have heard many young students do so right after the election, yet, the divide has been prevalent in minor beliefs generating over and over the years. I liked your analogy about weeds as well, in order to lessen the divide, we have to be willing to do the non-fun stuff and have the non-fun conversations which I think is very important to understand.
I agree wholeheartedly that Citizens United is one of the most consequential court cases of the century, maybe even more important than Obergefell v. Hodges. I don’t see how this case is morally tenable, and I’d love to discuss it with someone who agrees to try and figure out where the disconnect is. The simple idea that money = speech means that the wealthy have more speech than the poor and middle class! How is that not ridiculous??? Thanks for bringing this up in your blog.