Campaign Finance Spending You decide

Campaign finance spending reform

For many years, campaign finance reform was an important 'talking point' amongst populist Democratic and Republican senators alike, cumulating in the McCain-Feingold Act. The Act placed spending limits upon 'soft money' (money not directly given to a candidate or party) as well as banned corporations from financing advertisements designed to influence voting about particular issues before an election (Gitell 2003). The Act was intended to reduce the influence of PACs (political action committees) upon politics by limiting their scope in terms of the amount of contributions they could accept and how they disseminated information. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Citizen's United effectively nullified the most significant portions of the Act, declaring them unconstitutional limits upon free speech.

In the landmark decision, "the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations...

The ruling made it very easy for large entities such as corporations to make contributions to campaigns without restrictions. According to Chief Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority: "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" (Hasen 2011). The decision specifically declared that bans upon 'soft money' contribution to PACs or other entities could not be regulated, so long as they were not directly made to the candidate him or herself.
The ruling seems baffling, to a layperson: the idea that corporations are 'persons' seems like a necessary fiction under the law for business and taxation purposes (to protect shareholders invested in a corporation from liability and to tax corporate profits). However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision implies that corporations are very literally 'persons' entitled to speech. This tips the balance in favor of large, powerful corporations who can afford to back powerful…