Supreme Court votes to lessen limitations in landmark Citizens United v. FEC case
Casey O'Brien
Issue date: 2/4/10 Section: News
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporate interests in a landmark 5-4 decision that now allows for corporations, and presumably labor unions, to spend money towards political campaigns with fewer limitations.
The ruling in the case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, struck down a previous ruling in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and partially struck down a ruling in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission.
The recent case was brought up in 2008 when the not-for-profit corporation Citizens United produced a documentary that was critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called "Hillary: The Movie." Because of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, the legality of the film was called into question.
Now that the Supreme Court has made its decision, the only doubts that remain are whether or not the court made the right decision.
Staci Rhine of the Wittenberg Political Science Department expressed her concern about the decision: "I'm not very impressed with it. The ruling dramatically influences the ability of corporations to influence elections. Many of us are already concerned about the role of money in elections and this will only add to preexisting suspicions."
According to Rhine, "We're most likely to see the results of this ruling at the state and federal levels before we see how it's implemented in local elections, all of which are affected by the ruling."
The ruling also has the potential of putting CEOs and companies at risk of repercussions from winning candidates who were not financially supported.
Also, the mere threat of spending money on a candidate's campaign could be enough to affect candidates' positions and presumably their policies if elected.
Only time will tell exactly how the justices' ruling will affect elections to come.
The ruling in the case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, struck down a previous ruling in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and partially struck down a ruling in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission.
The recent case was brought up in 2008 when the not-for-profit corporation Citizens United produced a documentary that was critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called "Hillary: The Movie." Because of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, the legality of the film was called into question.
Now that the Supreme Court has made its decision, the only doubts that remain are whether or not the court made the right decision.
Staci Rhine of the Wittenberg Political Science Department expressed her concern about the decision: "I'm not very impressed with it. The ruling dramatically influences the ability of corporations to influence elections. Many of us are already concerned about the role of money in elections and this will only add to preexisting suspicions."
According to Rhine, "We're most likely to see the results of this ruling at the state and federal levels before we see how it's implemented in local elections, all of which are affected by the ruling."
The ruling also has the potential of putting CEOs and companies at risk of repercussions from winning candidates who were not financially supported.
Also, the mere threat of spending money on a candidate's campaign could be enough to affect candidates' positions and presumably their policies if elected.
Only time will tell exactly how the justices' ruling will affect elections to come.
Be the first to comment on this story