Did the Citizens

United Supreme
Court ruling (2010)
compromise
American
democracy?

Money is the mothers milk of politics.

-Jesse M. Unruh (prominent politician in CA)

Money is the key determinant in winning elections (often the primary

determinant)
Most Americans believe money negatively influences politics

Campaign Finance Reform:

Historically has focused on three major issues:
Limits on the size of contributions
Prohibition/limits on corporation and union spending
Transparency
Major Reforms:
Federal Election Campaign Act (and est. of the FEC) (1971) - limited size and
source of funding and req. greater transparency from donors
Partially dismantled by Buckley v. Valeo decision in 1976 (spending $
to support a candidate = speech)
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act/McCain-Feingold (2002)- limited
electioneering from independent sources 30 days prior to election
Partially dismantled by the Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010

Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee (FEC)

2010

Furthered the decision made in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision (spending
= speech; therefore independent expenditures cannot be limited) by ruling
that corporations have the same rights to free speech as individual citizens

Ruled portions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (restricted issue
ads within 30 days of a fed. election) as unconstitutional

Led to unprecedented
independent spending on
election campaigns (so
long as the donor is not
coordinating with the
candidate)

Debate over Citizens United v. FEC

Supportive of Citizens United

Opposed to Citizens United

Any restriction of free speech threatens

democracy

Speech has been regulated in myriad ways in

the history of the U.S. - not unprecedented

Corporations are associations of

citizens/collections of individuals

Corporate personhood is a flawed notion

Corruption - unlimited $ allows for the buying

of elections (access to politicians)
Gvt becomes an agent of interest groups rather
than represent the people

Powerful interest groups will ultimately be

checked by entrusting people to make wise
decisions (primarily by exercising right to
vote)

Gvts job is to protect American democracy and

protect the welfare of the people
- big business has threatened these things
since late 19th c.

Since Citizens United:

Unprecedented $ donated to campaigns

Rise of the Super PAC

Difference between a PAC and a SuperPAC?

PACs (Political Action Committees) are regulated by FEC - can accept $2500
from individuals per election and can raise a total of $5000 to donate directly to
campaign; prohibited from acceptiong money from corporations, unions and
associations
Super PACs: independent expenditure only committees - cannot contribute to
candidate/campaign directly, but may engage in unlimited spending independently;
can collect from corporations, unions, etc.; limited regulation- they can have no
coordination with candidate/campaign and they must report expenditures and
contributors to the FEC

Loophole!:
501c4
spending
Why has 501c4 spending
been a matter of
particular attention?

Anonymous Campaign Donors

Since Citizens United (2010), we have seen the formation of unprecedented

numbers of 501c4 organizations
501c4s are non-profit organizations which, in theory, are designed to promote
social welfare causes
But they can also participate in politics so long as it is not their primary focus
ie. Crossroads GPS - bills itself as an organization meant to educate
Americans and promote grassroots political action; donates billions to the
American Crossroads SuperPAC, a primary funder of Republican campaigns
501c4s DO NOT have to disclose who their donors are

Stephen Colbert illustrates how interest groups and

corporations launder money through 501c4s:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/3yzu4u/the-colbert-report-colbert-super-pac--trevor-potter---stephen-s-shell-corporation

In recent years,
concern from
both the
political left
and right

Should political power = economic power?

The Good News?

Both sides of the political aisle are able to raise large sums of money to
support their candidates.

The Bad News?

Arguably, both of the dominant parties are beholden to corporate interests