Collegiate Times

Recently, the United States Supreme Court handed down a bombshell ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, completely overturning one precedent and partially overturning another.

The divisive 5-4 ruling, which dealt with the contentious issue of campaign finance laws, has resulted in equal division amongst Americans. Those who agree with the court reiterate its findings, including the importance of maintaining First Amendment principles for all groups. Those who follow the dissenters assert that without the regulations, democracy will be lost in a flood of ad campaigns funded by corporations.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I would find it difficult to disagree with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion. As he stated, there is “no principled way to distinguish between media corporations and other corporations and that the dissent’s theory would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, on television news programs, in books and on blogs.”

As Justice Samuel Alito noted, the exception made for media corporations in the time periods corporations cannot support endorsements before elections is “simply a matter of legislative grace.”

For me, the problem is more so the potential application to other cases rather than a sympathy for corporations. For those who know the history, or want to look it up, the case bears an interesting resemblance to the 1977 case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.

Still, regardless of my opinions on the case, the implications remain the same. Furthermore, it is doubtful that anything I say in the next 400 words or so will change your opinion on the matter. For better or worse, the 2010 campaigns will be affected by the ruling. Though this year’s elections may see it to a higher degree, the presence of special interests and lobbies is nothing new. Instead of continuing a back-and-forth on idealism versus pragmatism, we have to develop new ways to confront the decision as it stands.

As many political thinkers have noted, voter turnout is an area of great concern. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in the 2008 presidential election that was noted for a record turnout, only 64 percent of the voting-age population cast its ballot for the next leader of the free world. Think about this: More than one-third of the nation remained silent on the biggest issues of our time.

I don’t mean to sound preachy or condescending in citing these facts, but I know these statistics are partially to blame for the current condition of politics. Corporations have founded interests in the actions of our representatives. They are motivated by profit, and justifiably so; deft management allows firms to expand and create jobs — without bailouts from the American taxpayer. They send lobbies to Washington to ensure these things.

But there is a certain amount of dangerous self-interest that is also sent to Washington, a self-interest that must be held in check to create a fair society for all Americans. However, because of Citizens United, increased voter turnout is one of few Constitutional means of shifting power back to — forgive me — Main Street.

The logic behind this is simple. I acknowledge (but don’t necessarily like) that the primary motive of elected officials is to remain in power. Because of this common motive, there is a common action: Representatives are loyal to the people who ensure their re-election, whoever that may be; as the saying goes, “dance with the one that brung ya.”

Right now, those with intense political motives, i.e., special interest groups, dominate the polls, and thus dominate the dance floor. By increasing voter turnout among those not seeking direct profit, but merely a government to represent them, we can dilute the power of special interests and refocus our politicians on our problems, not those of mega-corporations.

Continue Reading: 12 Next »