S. Constitution (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2009). The reason that the decision is so potentially harmful to the nation is that it permits corporate entities to contribute virtually unlimited amounts to their own privately-funded political advertisement (Liptak, 2010). The implication of the Citizens United case is that corporate conglomerates, powerful industries, and even foreign governments could purchase unlimited amounts of media airtime on American public media to promote the election of some candidates or to oppose the election of others (Liptak, 2010). Realistically, the amount of federally authorized public funding (USFEC, 2011) is absolutely inconsequential by comparison.

Necessary Changes

Quite obviously, the single most important necessary change to American politics is the reality of political lobbying through campaign contributions to the political campaigns of elected officials. The specifics of exactly what...

Lobbyists contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns for only one reason: because their recipients do subsequently cast votes that are favorable to their campaign contributors. If one has any doubt as to that suggestion, one need consider nothing more than the ongoing intransigence of Republican representative in Washington to vote against the interests of oil companies and the massive healthcare industry.
References

Edwards, G., Wattenberg, M., and Lineberry, R. (2009). Government in America: People,

Politics, and Policy. New York, NY: Longman.

Kennedy, E. (2006). America: Back on Track. Viking: New York.

Liptak, A. "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit." The New York Times;

(January 21, 2010). Retrieved July 12, 2011 from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

U.S. Federal Election Commission. (2011). Public Funding of Presidential Elections.

Retrieved July 12, 2011 from: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml