Moneyocracy - Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission
The story takes its roots in the 2010 F.E.C versus Citizens United Supreme Court decision and analyses its consequences on U.S elections and for Americans. What are the legal & political implications of this decision? Is this the beginning of a new era when corporations will shape the political arena as their businesses?
The 2012 Presidential election was the most costly ever in U.S. history. More than $6 billion have been spent by the Campaigns and independent groups to get their candidate elected.Back in April 2011, Barack Obama launched his 2012 presidential campaign with these words: aEUoeWeaEU(tm)re doing this now, because the politics we believe in does not start with expensive TV Ads or extravaganzasaEU|aEU_x009d_
With these words, the U.S. president directly referred to the Supreme CourtaEU(tm)s decision made on January 21, 2010 in the case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that all restrictions placed on how much financial support private entities would be allowed to contribute to their preferred candidateaEU(tm)s campaign (mainly via political advertisements), would violate the First Amendment and is therefore, unconstitutional.
This controversial Supreme Court decision built the framework of a new era in the privatization of the American electoral system. Thus far, Congress has failed to draft an amendment to address this decision, which will undoubtedly result in an increase of all corporate-derived lobbying and influence in American politics. Former Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower warned America against the influence of private and corporate interests over the democratic process. Today, the risks of passive corruption have never been greater in Washington and democracy feebly lingers in the shadow of Wall Street.
