Wall Street’s takeover of the Obama cabinet is now complete. Officially it started on Jan. 32, 2010, on that day the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban corporations from political spending on elections. Thus opening the floodgates allowing for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate officials into doing their bidding. Citizens United v. FEC was the landmark court case regarding the political spending of large corporations. Since this allows companies to throw as much money as they want to the political elector of their choice, essentially the Supreme Court has handed more power to the small sector of the population that dominates the economy. One year after this decision was made a poll was taken showing that spending from outside groups had jumped to $294.2 million in 2010 as compared to the $68.9 million spent in 2006 (Kromm). Almost half of that money came from just 10 groups and in 60 out of 75 congressional races, the candidate benefitting the most from outside spending won at an 80 percent win rate. The money that pours into elections is well hidden because independent groups are not required by law to disclose their donations. 7 of the 10 groups did not provide any donor information but they donated nearly $138.5 million, that’s half of the total donations in 2010! A Survey USA poll found out that, when asked whether corporate campaign contributions represent “free speech” or “bribes”, 77 percent of the American population said “bribes” (Kromm). Why is this so dangerous? Well, now corporate managers can in effect buy elections directly. They can then use the fact that they help these politicians into office to threaten them to vote for a bill that the company may... ... middle of paper ... ...cannot donate an unlimited amount of money to candidates. In addition, there has to be complete transparency in the donation made, which means we have to know who is donating, how much, and to whom the donation is going to. Also a new law should be passed to block this system of revolving doors that we have in Washington. This process will not be easy because the corporations will be fighting these bills til’ the very end, it is not in their interest for these proposed bills to pass. It may very well be that history records the Citizens Untied decision as one of the most corrupt decision of a corrupt age. The corporations have sat in their high chair for too long, secretly controlling the government from their shadowy perches. It time to shine a light and let the American people know that the government does not cater to the corporation, it caters to the people.
It took for the losing in the case with two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers for the government to realize that there was a problem within their justice system. If they couldn’t take down two people accused of deceiving investors, how did they assume that they would be able to take down numerous high-end executives within Wall Street? So in fall 2009, over a year after the initial hit of the financial crisis, Obama introduced the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task to oversee prosecution for fraud and financial crime a week before the hearing to discuss ’08 financial crisis prosecution. With such a department now put in place, the government believed they could go back and review the “fraud” that took place within Wall Street years before and place a blame somewhere, revealing another flaw of the US government and justice system. The government wasn’t taking the cases as serious as they should have. They weren’t finding ways to filter through Due Diligence underwriters and they weren’t calling forth whistleblowers. They were losing the case before it could even
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
The growth of large corporations had impacted American politics by causing governmental corruption because of the power some industries had in society. Since the government had used laissez faire in the late 1800s for the big businesses to...
The past few years, I’ve taken an interest into our constitution. As a result of this interest, I would at times sift through interesting Supreme Court cases. Tinker v. Des Moines and Johnson v. Texas would, to some, conflict with cases like Schenck v. United States. The line drawn on the issue of free speech to others may be blurry, but to me, it has always been crystal clear. So when Super PACs, Political Action Committees that can donate unlimited funds to an independent cause, arose, I concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to protect free speech. To most it seems, Super PACs are just evil PACs, and they, unlike regular PACs, ruin elections. They really only differ by their method, however, when discussing the movement of money. Super PACs are run “independently”, and PACs are usually partisan.
in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to
Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
At first glance, it seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Preamble of the Constitution, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derived from one of its oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? Originally consisting of only white male property owners, eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. Corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found its way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the battle over corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.
Kenneth Vogel’s Big Money explores the invasion of money into our political system. In the novel, Vogel explains one of the most important important events that is currently happening in today’s elections: donors. This, according to Vogel, has been brought on by a ruling in the case Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The result of this case destroyed finance restrictions, giving Corporations and Unions the same laws of freedom of speech as individual Americans. The novel opens in February of 2012 where Vogel sneaks into a donor banquet. As our current president, Barack Obama, gives his speech, Vogel makes a note of the President’s words. In particular, Vogel focuses on one line “You now have the potential
Piercing the Corporate Veil Since the establishment in Salomon v Salomon, the separate legal personality has been long recognised in English law for centuries, that is to say, a limited liability company has its own legal identity distinct from its shareholders or directors. However, in certain circumstances the courts may be prepared to look behind the company at the actions of the directors and shareholders. This is known as "piercing the corporate veil". There are numerous cases concerning the "piercing the corporate veil", among which, Jones v Lipman[1] was a typical case. Lipman sold land to Jones by a written contract but refused to complete the sale because of another good deal, instead he offered damages for breach of contract.
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
A competitive market makes a country stronger but without regulation it can threaten the country’s democracy. The President criticized the large corporations for “keeping prices artificially high and failing to increase workers’ purchasing power”(Liberty 863). Franklin D Roosevelt realized large corporations who gained monopolies were gaining immense influence on matter’s concerning government and the daily lives of American citizens. The first New Deal reforms were introduced, not to dismantle large industries but to control them in such a manner that they could never challenge the democratic government. Large corporations took advantage of the liberty given to them prior to the crash by exploiting the profits in payoffs or bribes. The businesses gained influence in government by funding election campaigns of tainted politicians who would in return be blinded of the corruption spread by the untouchable corporations to expand their profit margins.
...the constitution to add “money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights” we as citizens of US should ask for a new amendment that will deal strictly with corporations. Part of this amendment should include a section where it specifically states that persons involved in decision making should be held accountable in court of law for the mistakes that corporation makes. Simple dissolution of a corporation does not solve or punish people who are in charge of decision-making that harm an individual or individuals. The hype that this case has made could be justified, but not for the reasons it is known for. If a company has extra money and would like to invest in a candidate of their liking than they should be able to do so. The reason we are so successful is due to competition and added money could add the edge.
In the inception of this country the idea of having a democracy may have been possible, but now that in a sense corporations dictate the laws that will pass and the ones that don’t, it is becoming more and more difficult to achieve a so-called “true” democracy.