Election Highlights Need for Campaign Finance Reform

image
Jane SusskindJane Susskind
Published: 17 Nov, 2012
2 min read

citizens united reform

After an astounding $6 billion was spent this election cycle, Americans are once again confronted with the issue of campaign finance reform and the role of corporations in deciding the future of America. Inherent in any discussion of campaign finance reform is the 2010 Citizens United decision, which prohibits the government from restricting political spending by corporations and unions, essentially ruling that corporations are entitled to unlimited campaign spending.

Since the ruling, opponents of the decision have been vocal about their dissent, forming coalitions nationwide in favor of amending the Constitution. Voters in Montana and Colorado rejected the ruling, "with 75 percent and 74 percent of the state’s citizens voting against it, respectively."

Most recently, San Diego City Councilwoman Marti Emerald has called to overturn the controversial decision, focusing on the effect of the national ruling on state and local elections. She writes,

"The Citizens United case directly impacts state and local efforts to control the influence of corporate money in their own elections," continuing that the "ruling and its far reaching effects represent serious and direct threats to our democracy.''

Twenty-two states have come together to oppose Citizens United, backing Montana in its fight against the Supreme Court ruling. In their attempt to "Stamp Money Out of Politics," Montana and Ben Cohen, of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, are encouraging people to stamp dollar bills with that message to spread the word against policies like Citizens United.

Minnesota Rep. Rick Nolan recently spoke out against the ruling, arguing:

“Candidates are spending all their time raising money and campaigning, and nobody’s governing,” he said. “That poses a real serious threat to our economy and our future.”

However, in a Thursday speech to the Federalist Society, Justice Alito defended the 2010 Supreme Court decision. Rebutting the prominent argument against Citizens United -- the notion that corporations should not get free speech rights like individuals -- he said, “It is pithy, it fits on a bumper sticker, and in fact a variety of bumper stickers are available.”

He continued to identify the "real issue" as whether or not free speech rights should be limited to "certain preferred corporations, namely those media organizations.”

The election made clear that American voters do not want corporate dominated elections, and that campaign finance reform is the necessary next step in American politics. Attempts to amend the Constitution will only grow with the closing of the 2012 election.

IVP Donate

You Might Also Like

Will the Texas Republican Party be Successful Where the Hawaiian Democratic Party Failed?
Will the Texas Republican Party be Successful Where the Hawaiian Democratic Party Failed?
The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) is suing Secretary of State Jane Nelson in an effort to close the state’s primary elections to party members only – a move that the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH) tried back in 2013 in its state and failed. ...
05 Sep, 2025
-
3 min read
Supreme Court building.
Retired Attorney Takes Voting Rights Case All the Way to the Supreme Court -- By Himself
The next big voting rights case the Supreme Court of the United States could consider wasn’t filed by the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, or another household name when it comes to voter rights. ...
09 Sep, 2025
-
5 min read
congress flag
Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians
There may be no greater indication that voters are not being listened to in the escalating redistricting war between the Republican and Democratic Parties than a new poll from NBC News that shows 8-in-10 Americans want the parties to stop....
10 Sep, 2025
-
3 min read