Student Blog: Thoughts On The Law And The Legal Field
MIXED VIEWS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION
Millions of dollars are poured into campaigns each election every year. Members of Congress look to wealthy individuals and businesses to fund their campaigns. For years it has been debated whether or not the government should limit contributions to campaigns or campaign spending to prevent corruption of politicians. In 2010, the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United that there are no limits on corporate spending on political campaigns.
After Citizens United, there has been a renewed drive for major campaign finance reform. For example, the League of Women Voters “strongly supports legislation that will enhance disclosure, fix the public financing system for presidential candidates and establish congressional public financing.” Some people who support campaign finance reform rely on the Federalist Papers where James Madison wrote that the Constitution should ensure that private interests could not seize control of the government and use its power for their private benefit.
However, there are others who are skeptical of the effectiveness of any campaign finance reform including limitations on spending on contributions. “Campaign-finance reform has not managed either to promote political equality or prevent corruption. And data show that one reason campaign-finance regulations are of little value in attacking corruption is that contributions simply don't corrupt politicians.”
We will see in the near future the effects of Citizens United.
Sources
http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Campaign_Finance_Reform&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=22&ContentID=13286
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-myth-of-campaign-finance-reform
COMMENTS
Be the first to comment!
You must sign in before you can comment.
