Ursini 1

Amanda Ursini

Professor Powell

Political Science 001

26 April 2017

Potential Solutions: Is There a Cure?

As demonstrated in both modern and past examples, with impact in the United States and

internationally, the influence that money has in politics is prominent. It is also a growing concern

for many Americans. With all of the controversy that surrounds this topic of dirty money, it is a

wonder that the malicious phenomenon has yet to become extinct. There have been previous

prevention policies, and while they have attempted to eliminate the issue at hand, it was to no

prevail. It is evident that, as a country, reform of the way that things are being done is in order.

Which brings up the question that is difficult to answer; how? Although it is impossible to

eradicate the use of money as a bargaining chip completely, some actions could be taken to slow

it down, or make the act of bribery less common in the American government. Some possible

ways to alleviate the flow of cash into politics would be to reinvigorate the FEC and reconsider

the Citizens United ruling.

The FEC, or the Federal Election Commission, is supposed to be a regulatory agency that

enforces the FECA act, or the act that governs the finances of elections. However, the actual

enforcement of the FECA by the FEC has been a little lackluster. As stated by a former

chairwoman, “‘The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,’ Ann M. Ravel, the

chairwoman, said in an interview. ‘I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions.

People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional’” (Lichtblau, 2015). This

quote, in summation, shows the negligence of the FEC. Ann Ravel, who quit of her own accord,
 Ursini 2

had tried for many years to fight for the FEC to do the task it was given, which was to enforce

the laws surrounding the finances of elections. If the committee that was assigned to enforce

such laws is not doing that, then who is monitoring funds and enforcing the punishments for

breaking the law? Quite simply, no one is. This creates an easy opening for the funneling of dark

money into the political system, by deciding who has the potential to be elected. Although the

incompetence of this agency may seem to be its own fault, some other factors influenced their

effectiveness, mainly the Supreme Court’s ruling of the Citizens United case. “The F.E.C.’s

paralysis comes at a particularly critical time because of the sea of change brought about by the

Supreme Court’s decision in 2010 in the Citizens United case, which freed corporations and

unions to spend unlimited funds in support of political candidates” (Lichtblau, 2015). Thus, it

became nearly impossible for the FEC to track campaign funds. While renewing the FEC could

potentially solve some problems, it would be impossible to do without reversing the Citizens

United ruling.

The 2010 Citizens United court case was, and still is, a very controversial ruling. The

Supreme Court ruled that it was “ In a nutshell, the high court’s 5-4 decision said that it is OK

for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for

or against a candidate” (Dunbar, 2012). Thus may not seem like such a big deal, however, the

implications and afterthoughts of the case still impact America today. This means that money

that is collected into, say, a super PAC, is not monitored at all. How it is used is completely up to

whoever manages the accounts. This is one of the main legal ways that money is funneled into

politics. Millions of dollars are being put into accounts, not monitored, and untouchable by the

government. If this disastrous case were to be reversed, there would be some regulation to

campaign spending. “Overturning Citizens United could lead to restrictions on or the elimination
 Ursini 3

of super PACs that have sprung up as a result of the ruling and subsequent decisions by lower

courts. Super PACs cannot contribute to or coordinate directly with candidates, but they can raise

and spending unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose them” (Berman, 2016).

Objectively, this decision did not help in the decrease of dark money funneled into any branch of

the U.S. government. With this ruling reversed, there would be laws in place to prevent

politicians from “owning” the government. The amount of money that a candidate has or has

raised should not be able to dictate whether or not they are elected into office.

In conclusion, two possible ways to mitigate the occurrence of money in the government

would be to revitalize the FEC and to annul the Citizens United Supreme Court case. While it is

unknown if these things are truly the cause of the government to be filled with green, it is

common belief that it will help some. All in all, there is no stopping corruption in a government

that has had a long history of such. However, one can only hope to lessen the evil. The dilemma

in itself is an enigma, as only those involved truly know the dealings. Corruption is a daily

occurrence in the life of an American, however, it should not be prevalent in the United States

government.