It may be that a minor, even in part, accidental modification of the legal strategy can find the beginning of a fresh era.
This was the case with the Citizens United vs. national Election Commission, which in 2009 decided to deal with the U.S. ultimate Court. The win of “united citizens”, a Washington NGO of that name, allowed an unlimited amount of money from business, including abroad money, to enter American elections. Since then, election campaigns in the United States have changed from a $5 billion athletics (2008 presidential election) to $15 billion sport (Presidential Elections of 2021). The problem has been getting worse for almost 15 years.
Money has been present in American politics since its birth; 1 can even claim that the founding of the United States was an economical defence of local rich people who were born, lived and rich in colonies. But before they grabbed arms against England to dispel the mad King George, they had his image in their homes.
Examples of local and abroad corruption can be multiplied – starting with Benjamin Franklin, who accepted from the French king a tabakura decorated with diamonds and a image of Louis XVI, as described by Zephyr Teachout in the book Corruption in America (2014). The dilemma, where kindness ends and corruption begins, will not be found in the constitution, as we will not find there any basis for a two-party strategy that has long defined American politics.
In 2002, Republican Arizona Senator John McCain became a sponsor in accordance with the Bipartisan run improvement Act, which prohibited large business – and trade unions – from backing politicians moving in elections. The bill besides prohibited tv from showing run spots 30 days before the election.
The Citizens United organization was founded in 1988 to support George W. Bush, who competed for the office of president the same year. This organization was liable for 1 of the biggest controversyes of the then presidential campaign, a tv place about Willie Horton, convicted of murdering a black man who escaped on a weekend pass and committed further crimes – armed robbery and rape. This communicative Bush “settled” the Democratic Party's opponent Michael Dukakis. In time, impressed by the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore of 2004, the organization itself took on producing films.
In 2008, Citizens United released a movie called Hilary: The Movie. erstwhile the movie went into distribution, it turned out that it had to be taken off the screens due to the fact that it broke the regulation of not publishing political material 30 days before the election. Citizens United sued the national Electoral Commission, asking how its activities disagree from any another medium, for example from the newspaper, where journalists can compose what they want without hindrance, protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
The first amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, was crucial in this gameplay. Lawyers representing Citizens United argued that all company, as any another entity, should have the right to freedom of expression, which it can manifest through its money: erstwhile individual sponsors a run of politics, it simply says that it supports its values and program.
Apart from the states, it is most likely impossible to realize this confounded thought structure, but conservatives have powerfully convinced everyone that “word” and “money” are alternate concepts here, and freedom of speech is fundamentally no different from freedom of having their dollars. Indeed, a large proportion of American citizens besides identify individual freedom with the right to property.
They believe that an unlimited stream of money for election campaigns of candidates that a given company or organization supports is nothing more than a manifestation of freedom of speech. Disagreeing to let this money into political circulation could so be understood as a criminalization of freedom of expression. And the fact that an average citizen does not have millions of dollars to share his political views with corporations is not a problem for conservative America.
Initially, the case lost in the appeal court, but Citizens United filed another appeal. In 2009, the ultimate Court decided to throw this seemingly boring (or, from another point of view, absurd) issue at the eye and then issued a decision. And so by 5 votes to four, the ultimate Court diametrically changed the character of the American elections – hopefully not forever.
Interestingly, the composition of the ultimate Court was at the time completely different from today, with a slight advantage from the Liberals. Still, a fewer things went wrong, giving the Conservatives the advantage.
Judge John Roberts endorsed Citizens United's lawsuit, fearing that if the court goes besides far, in the United States it will be prohibited to print books during election silence. justice Anthony Kennedy, in turn, was to be impressed by the relation with the life in communism he heard from his erstwhile assistant Alex Kozinski, from Romania, where, as the justice learned, nothing could be said. The remainder of the court voted predictablely: Conservative Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – for, and Liberal Ruth Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – against.
That explains 8 votes. The ninth theoretically belonged to the outgoing justice David Souter, who no longer took part in the vote. He most likely would have voted against Citizens United, but the absent have no votes, and the final vote belonged to justice Roberts.
Despite tiny street protests in Washington, D.C. with posters "Corporations aren't people" the case went through decently unnoticed by citizens. And this is where the financial ride starts without holding.
Even though the first run Obama became celebrated for collecting tiny contributions from private individuals, already preparing for her second word and seeing how much money Republicans collect for their candidate (Mitta Romney), herself began to trust on alleged political action committee (PAC) and fresh game rules. Applying for re-election in 2012, Obama turned to private donors and Wall Street for money. Over 20 sponsors (private people and corporations) contributed over $50 million to Obama's campaign.
Information about who contributed what to the policy's run can be read on the FEC website. Theoretically, any PAC has to uncover donors, but sponsors can establish organisations that make it hard to track that money. PAC can besides accept unlimited amount of money from companies: according to OpenSecrets, in 2022 Google spent $7.9 million on election campaigns.
The border where the PAC ends and the run staff begins is unfortunately rather fluid. This turned out in the 2012 presidential election erstwhile PAC Mitta Romney, reconstruct Our Future, had his quarters in the same building as run staff.
Another fatal consequence of the Citizens United decision is that politicians, from those locals to the biggest dozen, no longer have time for anything but calling billionaires and begging for money. It is not even possible to explain to voters how their lives will be improved – this component of the run is simply disappearing. Therefore, today, respective months before the November presidential election, neither president Biden nor erstwhile president Trump have told America what they intend to do if they win. The result of the U.S. elections is fundamentally no longer determined by anything but the money of wealthy corporations and truly wealthy people.
