Obviously, there aren’t many people happy with what’s happening in Washington right now. And because we live in a democracy, citizens can actually hold the members of Congress responsible for the shutdown — but we probably won’t.
The problem is that we’re not the hand that feeds Congress anymore — corporations are. Votes have become essentially sold to the highest bidder, and candidates with more funding can get their messages out easier. Because when more people know a candidate and his or her message, they’re more likely to vote for that person.
In 2010, an important case was decided in the Supreme Court — Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation that wished to advertise a documentary about then-Sen. Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election primaries. Because it is a corporation, however, it was illegal for the people of Citizens United to spend money on what the law considered an “electioneering communication” so close to an election. The Supreme Court ruled that was a violation of Citizens United’s First Amendment right.
Fast forward to today, and there’s a similar case to be heard in the Supreme Court. In the upcoming McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, limits for individuals may be changed. Currently, individuals are limited in how much they can give a candidate — $2,500 per election per candidate and up to $46,200 for all candidate donations in a two-year period. McCutcheon is not challenging the limit per candidate but the blanket two-year limit.
Before I go any further, I will pause and say that the most important freedom we have under the Constitution is the First Amendment. Without it, we wouldn’t be allowed to criticize the government and maintain a healthy democracy.
The Supreme Court feels strongly about the First Amendment, too, and it’s historically ruled to protect that right — especially when it comes to political speech. Justices look at any restriction on content with scrutiny, a standard that makes regulating political speech difficult. Thus, you have the Citizens United ruling, which extended the concept of “speech” to not only how individuals spend money, but corporations and labor unions as well. And it was protected.
However, the Citizens United ruling allowed corporations to donate an unlimited amount of money to political action committees, or PACs, even though they can’t do the same to individual candidates. And while PACs are legally barred from actively cooperating with campaigns on strategy, they can, and do, release advertisements supporting or attacking specific candidates. Essentially, donating to a PAC is donating to a candidate.
It’s easy to buy influence with unlimited donations from Wall Street allowed. Campaigns are getting bigger, and more money is required to stand a chance come election time. That means small-name candidates — ones who haven’t been bought by special interests — aren’t able to get elected. Without the support of the PACs, they have no campaign.
Supporters of the Citizens United decision argue as the Supreme Court does. This kind of spending is protected by the First Amendment, and striking down the decision would be a limit on political speech. However, that’s not the case.
Tying money to speech takes power away from those with fewer resources. While corporations may have a ton of money to spend buying campaigns, the average person doesn’t.
This causes a disproportional representation of the interests of a few corporate CEOs, suppressing any competing viewpoints with the power of their dollars.
Justin Jones is a UF journalism senior. His column runs on Thursdays. A version of this column ran on page 6 on 10/10/2013 under the headline "Congress and McCutcheon v. FEC"
