Unlimited Spending By Corporations and Unions - Bad For Democracy

In 2010 the United States Supreme Court concluded that the Congressional ban on unlimited spending by special interest groups was unconstitutional.  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010.  


We have seen some of the effects of this in the Republican primaries where a single rich individual or corporation can effectively continue to prop up a candidate when the public has lost interest in that candidate.  It allows for vicious attack ads that no candidate has to take responsibility for and it effectively allows one candidate to spend disproportionately to other candidates.


The real danger from this decision comes in local, state and judicial elections.  In these smaller elections a candidate who angers a large corporation or union in his or her district may find a well financed attack machine that is spending out of proportion to the candidates themselves.  The effect is likely to result in the district having representatives who rubber stamp anything the corporation or union wants.  This is not good for democracy because it gives a disproportionate voice to the person, union or corporation that has the money to drown out other voices.  


You will hear discussions of this during the 2012 Presidential race.  The place to look for its real effect is at the local and state level.


by Michael Quinn, Esq,