Citizens United and Super PACs

In 2008 Citizens United, a non-profit organization and conservative lobbying group, created a 90 minute documentary named Hillary: The Movie that was highly critical of the future presidential candidate and Democratic Senator from New York Hillary Clinton. Fearing that it would violate federal election laws it sought an injunction against the F.E.C. in federal district court, which sided with the F.E.C. and as a result the movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. In 2010, on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that spending limits were unconstitutional, allowing essentially unlimited contributions by corporations and unions to political action committees. The Super PAC is born.

Those that support the Citizens United ruling often defend it by stating that it is a free speech issue protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, they say it helps to inform voters and level the playing field in political races were the 'little guy' is up against a deep pocketed better known incumbent. Also, they say that it helps to increase transparency because Super PACs are required to report their donors on a quarterly basis to the F.E.C. Many conservatives believe it also benefits them in the media arena because they believe that the main stream media is inherently pro-Democrat, thus leveling the playing field for them.

Those that oppose the Citizens United ruling often state that corporations should not be granted the same First Amendment rights as citizens. They fear that elections and politicians will be bought and corrupted by such a powerful force. They also fear the uber-wealthy 0.0000063 percent of billionaires that posted 80% of the Super PACs donations with hawkish agendas and now that politician they just spent boat loads of capitol on has a major favor to repay. They believe elections are for the People and not for unions and corporations.

As for Myself, I find it laughable that corporations think they should have a say in any free democratic elections. Yeah, they can have a say if they can walk into a voting hall with their nonexistent legs and fit into one of those tiny booths and read the ballot with their nonexistent eyes and use the pen to check the box for their candidate with their nonexistent hands. Oh, you mean that cant do any of that. Well they don't have too because the U.S. Supreme Court gave them the green light to try to dump millions upon millions of dollars into negative attack ads to sway you into doing it for them. Shame.