Week 4 Post

The 2012 presidential election was the first of its kind in history.  For the first time, Super PAC’s were able to freely donate any amount of money to presidential campaigns in hopes to sway voters in their direction. This is coming off the hinges from the 2010 decision of the Citizens United vs. FEC’s Supreme Court case where they ruled in favor of Citizen’s United saying that corporations do in fact have the right to “free speech.” The reason this is such a controversial case and even still after the ruling was set, is that now it seems to be unknown whether candidates can win the election on their own without the influence of the “free speech” from corporations, unions, etc. and that it has completely changed the way the game is played.

            There are many reasons why one would support the corporate free speech. Super PAC’s have a heavy influence on the election. Think about it, if you didn’t see an Obama or Romney commercial every 5 minutes during the presidential election, you’d be forced to get out there and do some research on your own. Instead, you sit in front of the TV or read the paper, or simply walk by a billboard that targets a specific candidate and directly slams their character, it’s going to make you think twice about voting for that person. Those who support the Super PAC’s tend to lean in the direction that they are just being informative about the candidate they are supporting or against. They believe that corporations and/or big business have the right to free speech and that in free speech, they are 100% able to express their political opinion, whether or not it is in fact offensive. Another issue that seems to surface is that now with the Supreme Court ruling, candidates don’t have to disclose any longer who is donating to them and how much they are receiving from each individual/company.

            There are also many reasons why one would be against the corporate free speech. For instance, before the Citizens United vs. FEC trial came about, there were many laws on what could happen as far as support and donations during a presidential campaign. You were not allowed to donate more than $100 dollars, you had to release who was donating money to you and how much, and you could only accept limited amounts of money from public sources. Many people like this because it ensures that candidates have to lobby for themselves and that the election is all up to them and how THEY can win the race on their own. Ads have the heaviest effect on voters so Super PAC’s that run ads several times a day either supporting or opposing another candidate can make one think twice about their voting decision.

            The Super PAC’s have indeed made a huge influence on this past election and I am sure many more to come, maybe even too much of an influence. I think that with all this controversy, elections have lost their true meaning. It used to be about who can do the best job for our country and now it seems to be just about who can raise the most money or make the most slanderous comments. I don’t know much about politics but I do know that every time I saw an ad this past election, I became more and more detached from the urge to know about each candidate, I became sick of it. Super PAC’s can raise all the money they want but it all comes down to what the candidate is really going to do in office and if they are really going to pull thru on everything they say. In my personal opinion, I think Super PAC’s have negatively influenced the way that elections are run now, there is too much power in big business and it all heavily relies on who can raise the most money. We need to reach a happy medium where candidates can do it on their own again and where elections are based on what voters REALLY think, not just what candidates promise in their ads or speeches. Big business can be good, but it can also be bad and at this exact point in time, that is not what our country needs and at the end of the day, what we need is what is going to be best.