Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups. In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech.
A Brennan Center report by Daniel I. An election system that is skewed heavily toward wealthy donors also sustains racial bias and reinforces the racial wealth gap. Citizens United also unleashed political spending from special interest groups. In the case Speechnow. In other words, super PACs are not bound by spending limits on what they can collect or spend.
Additionally, super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but those donors can include dark money groups, which make the original source of the donations unclear. And while super PACs are technically prohibited from coordinating directly with candidates, weak coordination rules have often proven ineffective. Notably, the bulk of that money comes from just a few wealthy individual donors.
In the election cycle, for example, the top donors to super PACs contributed nearly 78 percent of all super PAC spending. Dark money is election-related spending where the source is secret.
Citizens United contributed to a major jump in this type of spending, which often comes from nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors. Citizens United allowed big political spenders to exploit the growing lack of transparency in political spending.
This has contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups in federal elections. In the top 10 most competitive Senate races, more than 71 percent of the outside spending on the winning candidates was dark money. Finally, because they can hide the identities of their donors, dark money groups also provide a way for foreign countries to hide their activity from U.
This increases the vulnerability of U. In the short term, a Supreme Court reversal or constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United is extremely unlikely, and regardless, it would leave many of the problems of big money in politics unsolved.
But even without a full reversal of Citizens United in the near future, there are policy solutions to help combat the dominance of big money in politics and the lack of transparency in the U. First, publicly funded elections would help counter the influence of the extremely wealthy by empowering small donors. Specifically, a system that matches small-dollar donations with public funds would expand the role of small donors and help candidates rely less on big checks and special interests.
In recent years, public financing has gained support across the United States. As of , 24 municipalities and 14 states have enacted some form of public financing, and at least winning congressional candidates voiced support for public financing during the midterm election cycle.
Lawmakers on the national, state, and local level can also push to increase transparency in election spending. Bossie: Border patrol agents "should be commended, not derided! CU Pres. Latest News See all.
David Bossie's op-ed highlighted on Fox News' Faulkner What Is Citizens United Citizens United has a variety of different projects that help it uniquely and successfully fulfill its mission.
Citizens United Affiliates Citizens United Foundation CUF is a c 3 tax-exempt non-profit dedicated to informing the American people about public policy issues which relate to traditional American values: strong national defense, Constitutionally limited government, free market economics, belief in God and Judeo-Christian values, and the recognition of the family as the basic social unit of our society.
Videos Film Trailers Issue Ads. State Department For Documents
0コメント