Citizens United V. Federal Election Process: Case Study

18855 Words76 Pages
PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE January 2013 Dr. John F. Schunk, Editor “Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.” PRO P01. CITIZENS UNITED DECISION IS DEEPLY FLAWED P02. MONEY HAS SWAMPED THE ELECTION PROCESS P03. C.U. TILTS THE PROCESS IN FAVOR OF THE WEALTHY P04. ALLEGED INDEPENDENCE OF SUPER-PACs IS A JOKE P05. CAMPAIGN DONORS HIDE BEHIND ANONYMITY P06. MONEY HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON ELECTION OUTCOMES P07. BIG MONEY CORRUPTS THE POLITICAL PROCESS P08. MONTANA DEMONSTRATES POLITICAL CORRUPTION P09. C.U. DECISION THREATENS DEMOCRACY P10. FREE SPEECH ISSUE IS BOGUS P11. PUBLIC OPINION OPPOSES C.U. DECISION CON C01. CITIZENS UNITED DECISION HAS…show more content…
66, GALE CENGAGE LEARNING, Expanded Academic ASAP. Elements of the Supreme Court's theory in Citizens United seem to have little connection to politics as it is actually practiced. The majority reasoned that "by definition," all of this new money could not be corrupting, since "an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate." How could a politician be influenced by donors when he has no idea what they're up to? In reality, of course, close allies and recent aides of the candidates run the super PACS. Romney has described a donor to one of his supportive super PACS as having given "to me," and Rick Santorum referred to a group that backed him as "my super PAC." Karl Rove, who co-founded the super PAC American Crossroads and a nondisclosing 501(c)(4), Crossroads GPS, famously joined in Romney's Park City donor retreat in June. But even if campaigns and "outside" operatives don't coordinate their plans in back rooms, they keep each other informed by telegraphing their forthcoming moves through the press. 6/2(1+2)= SK/P05. CAMPAIGN DONORS HIDE BEHIND ANONYMITY 1. SUPER-PACs ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REVEAL
Open Document