Campaign finance reform has been hotly contested this election season. Perhaps this issue has been widely discussed in previous election cycles, and I, as a young person, was not aware of it. Bernie Sanders’ promise of a political revolution relies heavily on this criticism. He consistently denounces our current political system as being corrupt and proudly touts the fact that the majority of his donations come from “average Americans.” Sanders has created a very distinct correlation in the minds of his voters between the origins of political contributions and a candidate’s integrity. Hillary Clinton, who, not long ago was thought to be almost guaranteed the Democratic nomination, has seemingly lost support because of the contributions she has received from Wall Street. Throughout this election season, it seems that voters have been less concerned with candidates’ foreign policy knowledge, political expertise or the feasibility of their promised reforms. Instead, they have focused on rough sketches of candidates’ characters. Indeed, perhaps the most common question among voters has been: Where is the money coming from?
Concerns about campaign finance have come to the forefront as super PACS increasingly play into American political elections. A few people, hailing from the highest income brackets, the most powerful interest groups and the most prominent corporations, buy political clout. Super PACS rose to power in the American political landscape beginning in 2010 with the landmark Citizens United case.
Few other cases in American history have received a more hostile response. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion argued, “Prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.” According to the ruling, the First Amendment does not distinguish between media and other corporations. Because the First Amendment protects “associations” of individuals just as it protects individuals and because it cannot discriminate based on the identity of the speaker, corporations are entitled to protections of free speech. According to the justices, giving money to a campaign is tantamount to speaking in support of it. As a result, restricting donations to political campaigns limits free speech, even if those donations come from huge corporations and PACs.
President Barack Obama, along with other public officials and constitutional law experts, has tirelessly expressed his distaste for the Court’s ruling. A few days ago in Illinois, the president passionately asserted, “A handful of families and hidden interests shouldn’t be able to bankroll elections in the greatest democracy on Earth.”
I believe the Citizens United ruling has contributed to political apathy among Americans. The larger the stake interest groups and corporations have in elections, the less power is left to average Americans. When a candidate can easily receive millions of dollars for aligning their platform with the interests of few, powerful entities, the deck is stacked against common citizens. To some, it seems pointless to do what is within their means whether that be showing up to the polls or contributing $100 dollars. Unfortunately, such tokens of support appear to mean little in the face of massive corporate bankrolls. In essence, low voter turnout might be a symptom of our flawed campaign finance system.
However, there might be an opportunity for monumental change in the coming years. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death may allow for the reversal of decisions like Citizens United. With the vacancy left by Scalia and three more justices around or over the age of 80, the president and representatives we elect have a great deal of power. Those we elect to office this election cycle could drastically change the political composition of the Supreme Court. While the current political system including campaign finance make many feel that their voices are muted, if we care about issues like campaign finance reform, abortion, affirmative action, climate change and gun rights, then now is the time to get involved. Now is the time to speak out and make sure we elect people who represent our opinions. The ideological makeup of the Supreme Court might change very soon, and this is a perfect time to make our voices as loud as possible.
