Simone Lawson
Money, Politics, and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United is a book edited by Monica Youn. It is a volume of essays cosponsored with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. The book explores the labyrinth that led to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision and its implications. The ruling gave corporations and unions the constitutional right to spend unlimited money in elections, sparking controversy and concerns about the influence of money in politics.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Author | Monica Youn |
| Publisher | NYU's Brennan Center for Justice |
| Format | eBook |
| Co-sponsors | NYU School of Law |
| Contributors | Mark Alexander, Richard Briffault, Deborah Hellman, Frances Hill, Samuel Issacharoff, Burt Neuborne, Richard Pildes, Dean R |
| Description | A collection of essays exploring the labyrinth that led to Citizens United and where the decision may lead. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The role of low-cost social media
Social media offers a cost-effective way to reach large audiences, making it an integral part of modern political campaigns. Campaigns use targeted ads, viral content, and interactive posts to mobilize supporters and sway undecided voters. For example, Barack Obama's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns effectively utilized social media for grassroots organizing, fundraising, and voter turnout. Social media has also been instrumental in the rise of grassroots political movements, with hashtags, viral videos, and online petitions galvanizing support and organizing protests or events.
Political newcomers can leverage social media to gain recognition and raise funds, helping them compete against incumbents with established donor networks. Social media allows anyone with an internet connection to become a content creator and reach a wide audience, thus challenging the traditional media's monopoly on powerful communication channels. It enables politicians to communicate directly with the public, bypassing media filters and conveying their messages unedited and in real time.
However, social media also presents challenges such as misinformation, fake news, and political polarization. Algorithms often prioritize content that reinforces users' existing beliefs, leading to fragmented and polarized public discourse. The spread of misinformation during election cycles has highlighted the difficulties of maintaining informed and balanced discourse on social media. Additionally, social media can contribute to echo chambers, where users only engage with like-minded individuals, further exacerbating political polarization.
Despite these challenges, social media remains a critical tool in modern politics. It fosters engagement between politicians and citizens, allowing for immediate feedback and interaction. Citizens and watchdog organizations use these platforms to hold leaders accountable, exposing corruption and misconduct. Social media platforms are key sources of news and information for many, and their influence on political processes and activities will likely continue to grow and evolve.
Framing the Legislature: The Constitutional Vision
You may want to see also
Small donor phenomenon
The 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has been described as a blow to democracy, ushering in a new era of corporate influence in politics. The ruling reversed long-standing campaign finance restrictions, allowing corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited sums on elections, and designating corporate spending on elections as a form of free speech. This has resulted in a dramatic increase in political spending from outside groups, with wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups gaining unprecedented influence.
In response to this, the concept of small donor public financing has emerged as a potential solution to counter the outsized influence of megadonors. Small donor match systems use public funds to match low-dollar contributions from residents to participating candidates, helping to amplify the voices of everyday voters. This approach has been successfully implemented in cities like New York and Seattle, where publicly financed candidates have won council races despite facing millions in corporate expenditures.
Small donor public financing offers several benefits. Firstly, it enables candidates to rely on support from a broad base of constituents rather than a handful of wealthy donors, giving everyday Americans a greater say in their elections and government. Secondly, it provides candidates with an alternative to traditional fundraising, freeing them from the need to court wealthy donors and prioritize their interests over those of their constituents. Additionally, small-dollar donations from diverse donor bases can lower the risk of revenue loss for organizations and campaigns, as small donors are often more reliable and easier to retain than major donors.
In the 2022 midterm elections, millions of small donors contributed a record-breaking amount to congressional campaigns. However, this was outspent by just 100 big donors, highlighting the ongoing challenge of reducing the influence of megadonors. To address this, policymakers can implement reforms such as multiple matching funds for small contributions and stronger disclosure laws that require groups spending significant sums on elections to report their largest donors.
Constitution's Structure: Sections Explained
You may want to see also
Real-time transparency in campaign spending
In 2010, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission reversed long-standing campaign finance restrictions. The ruling established that corporations and unions had a constitutional right to spend unlimited money on elections, marking a significant shift in the landscape of political funding. This decision has been widely criticised for its potential to distort democracy and amplify the influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.
The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has brought to light the critical need for real-time transparency in campaign spending. Transparency in political financing is essential for maintaining a healthy democracy. It ensures that elected officials remain accountable to their constituents and that electoral processes are fair and transparent. Real-time transparency can be achieved through the adoption of open-source solutions, such as SunBeam, which facilitate the immediate disclosure of campaign finance contributions and expenditures. This technology enables anyone to verify the workings of the system and contribute improvements, embodying the very principles of transparency it aims to promote.
By utilising tools like SunBeam, we can move towards a system where transparency is not just an aspiration but a tangible reality. This shift represents a significant advancement in how democracy operates in the digital age, placing transparency and accountability at the heart of electoral processes. Real-time transparency empowers voters with immediate access to information, enabling them to make informed decisions and form their own perceptions of candidates.
However, it is important to recognise that technology alone cannot solve all the challenges associated with campaign finance transparency. Strong disclosure laws, similar to those enacted in Washington, are necessary to require groups spending significant amounts on election activities to disclose their largest donors. Additionally, stricter rules should be implemented to prevent super PACs and other outside groups from directly coordinating with candidates and parties, even though this may be difficult as the Federal Election Commission is dysfunctional.
To address the issue of real-time transparency in campaign spending, it is imperative to combine technological advancements with robust legislative reforms. This dual approach will help curb the influence of wealthy donors and special interest groups, ensuring that electoral processes are fair and accountable to the public.
Arguments: Commotion or Constitution?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Disclosure laws
The 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has been described as a blow to democracy, ushering in a new era of corporate influence in politics. The ruling held that corporations and unions had a constitutional right to spend unlimited sums in elections, overturning decades of precedent and numerous laws. This resulted in a surge of independent spending in the 2010 election, much of it done secretly, leading to widespread disapproval.
In addition to disclosure laws, other measures have been proposed to address the issues arising from Citizens United. These include stricter rules to prevent super PACs and other outside groups from coordinating directly with candidates and parties, as well as providing alternative means for candidates to fund their campaigns without relying on big donors and super PACs.
At the federal level, there have been challenges in enforcing existing laws due to dysfunction at the Federal Election Commission. Nevertheless, lawmakers and regulators are urged to pass stricter rules to curb the influence of money in politics.
On the legislative front, efforts have been made to undo the Citizens United ruling. In 2010, the DISCLOSE Act passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate. The act would have required additional disclosure by corporations of their campaign expenditures and prohibited political spending by certain American companies with significant foreign ownership or government contractors.
Furthermore, at least 22 states and hundreds of cities have voted to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, demonstrating the widespread desire for reducing the influence of money in politics.
The Constitution's Congressional Powers: Explained
You may want to see also
Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United
In 2010, the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) reversed long-standing campaign finance restrictions. The decision enabled corporations, unions, and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections, marking a significant shift in the political landscape. This controversial ruling sparked widespread disapproval, with critics arguing that it would grant corporations undue influence in politics and allow them to "buy elections."
The Citizens United decision has been widely condemned for amplifying the political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups. It has led to the creation of super PACs, which further empower these entities to spend vast sums of money on elections. This has resulted in a fusion of private wealth and political power, with some arguing that it has effectively drowned out the voices of citizens and transformed the United States into an "oligarchy with unlimited political bribery."
In response to this decision, there have been growing calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and curb the influence of money in politics. At least 22 states and hundreds of cities have already voted to support such an amendment, reflecting the bipartisan nature of this issue. The proposed amendments, such as the Democracy for All Amendment and the Free and Fair Elections Amendment, aim to empower Congress and states to set reasonable campaign finance rules, limit corporate spending, and ensure that the American people's voices are not overshadowed by wealthy individuals and corporate interests.
Passing a constitutional amendment, however, is a complex and challenging process. It requires a two-thirds majority in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Despite the significant support for overturning Citizens United, the road to achieving this amendment is arduous and requires a sustained, cross-partisan campaign. In the meantime, alternative strategies have been proposed to mitigate the impact of Citizens United, such as strong disclosure laws and stricter rules to prevent coordination between super PACs and political candidates.
The debate surrounding Citizens United highlights the ongoing struggle between private economic power and the public realm in American politics. While the Supreme Court's decision has shifted the landscape, the pushback and efforts to overturn it demonstrate a commitment to preserving democratic ideals and ensuring that elections are not unduly influenced by corporate wealth.
Napoleon's Constitution: A Significant Shift in Power Dynamics
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The book is a collection of essays that attempts to map out the complex labyrinth that led to Citizens United and explores where this decision may lead.
The book was edited by Monica Youn.
The book focuses on the US Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the subsequent increase in political spending from outside groups, including corporations and unions.
The goal of the book is to curb the rise of unfettered money in politics post-Citizens United and to advance a vision of the Constitution as a charter for a vibrant, participatory democracy.
