We should Amend The Constitution to Overturn Citizens United

:D First, I'll provide a short summary for voters who haven't yet heard about the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission case and the proposed amendment that would overturn it. In January 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Citizens United, a conservative lobbying organization that wanted to air a film strongly criticizing Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primaries. The showing of this film had previously been deemed in violation of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which regulated excessive campaign donations and advertisements from certain corporations, unions, and committees. Citizens United took the case regarding the ban of their film to the Supreme Court, which ruled that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures and electioneering communications that were previously deemed illegal by the BCRA and a number of other court rulings and laws. In response to the Supreme Court decision, a number of progressive organizations have asked that the ruling be overturned. These groups mainly disprove of the ruling because it allows certain corporations, unions, and financial giants to donate and advertise for the candidates of their choice regardless of the amounts of spending involved. Groups opposing Citizens United want to pass an amendment that limits corporate giants from pouring unlimited amounts of money into the election cycle - this amendment is supported by millions and millions of regular Americans who want to take elections out of the hands of billionaires and into the hands of the common folk who are entitled to choose government officials on their own accord (as per the Constitution). The following reasons overwhelmingly show the reasoning of these groups in wanting to overturn Citizens United, and demonstrate why each and every Constitution-abiding American should support them in their cause: 1. Corporations, unions, and individuals can now spend unlimited amounts of money campaigning for candidates of their choice using 'electioneering communications' (advertisements). Before the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United vs. FEC case, laws and reforms such as the BCRA made sure that the people, not the financial giants, were in control of who wins an election. Common Americans were the ones you could find campaigning, and regular folk were in charge of whether Candidate A, Candidate B, or Candidate C is victorious. However, due to the Citizens United ruling, this is no longer the scenario. Today, the common citizens are pushed out of the way, with corporations and billionaires being the new ones in charge. Due to the ruling, they can spend however much they want advertising on the television, on the radio, and in newspapers - this makes the election hop out of the hands of American citizens and into the hands of banks, companies, and unions who can now control the outcome of an election themselves. Note that unlimited means unlimited, meaning that the same one percent of American citizens in control of 47% of America's wealth are the ones who are influencing whether corporate-funded, wealthy career politicians or honest candidates with good ambitions are winning elections (after financial giants take firm root in the election process, we won't see any more of the latter type of candidate mentioned unless something changes). 2. With the Citizens United ruling, the political and electoral process will be completely re-innovated. As mentioned earlier, once the corporate-interest billionaires are in full control of the electoral process, we won't see any more of the genuine, trustworthy candidates that actually care for the well-being of America and its citizens. The effects of the Supreme Court ruling in this aspect can already be seen through elections around America, with bank-friendly, corporate-approving candidates beginning to win elections due to unlimited funding from massive financial giants. For example, let's take a look at the 2012 United States Massachusetts Senatorial election. This election, taking place after the Citizens United ruling, saw Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard and well-known activist for financial reform, take on incumbent Scott Brown, a career politician who had previously served in both the Massachusetts Senate and House of Representatives. While Warren was known around the United States for her creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and opposition to giant banks and corporate interests, Brown was funded by a variety of the same humongous banks and corporations that Warren fought against. In order to see the effect of the Citizens United ruling over who got which funds, let's look at the top five donors for each candidate. Elizabeth Warren: 1. EMILY's List (PAC that works to help women with progressive values win office) 2. MoveOn. org (public policy advocacy group) 3. Harvard University 4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5. Boston University Scott Brown: 1. Fidelity Investments (financial services corporation) 2. EMC Corporation (multinational corporation) 3. Golman Sachs (multinational investment banking firm) 4. VoteSane PAC 5. State Street Corporation (financial services holding company) After viewing these donors, you can see quite plainly that the banks and corporations have a humongous influence in choosing who wins elections. Elizabeth Warren, an opponent of corporate interests and corrupt banks, was funded by universities and progressive activist groups, while Scott Brown, a proponent of corporate interests, was funded by a variety of financial corporations and banking firms. Without the Citizens United ruling, the billionaires in charge of corporations and banks wouldn't have been able to manhandle elections nearly as much as they were able to. Eventually, Warren won by a small margin, though the election serves as a reminder that without appropriate regulations on corporate funding, a few aristocrats will be able to completely control the outcome of elections regardless of the wants and needs of common American citizens (Note: I'm completely fine if you support any one political party over another, though you must understand that regardless of political affiliation, all candidates deserve a chance to be heard and shouldn't be shoved to the side by the powerful voices of large banks, corporations, and billionaires that put financial interests ahead of our own nation"s well-being). 3. Opponents of Citizens United are using the powers entitled to them by the Constitution to argue their case. While those who approved of the ruling might say that reducing the amount of money giant corporations can spend on elections is violating 'free speech', the opponents of Citizens United truly have the constitution on their side. The First Amendment, held to be near-sacred by many of America's citizens, states cleanly and clearly that Americans have the right to freedom of speech, petition, assembly, etc. All of these rights are important in determining electoral reform legislation. At first sight, 'freedom of speech' might appear to mean that donors can spend as much money as they'd like to advocate their electoral positions. 'Freedom of speech' also applies to the common American. Allowing corporate giants and bankers to run elections quashes the speech of the common American - no longer are elections controlled by Americans who want to speak for their candidates. Rather, our speech is being shoved aside by billionaires and financial giants that think they can control the outcome of elections themselves. These are all reasons why an anti-Citizens United amendment should be supported, though it looks like I have nearly run out of my characters, so I must stop my argument short. Thank you, and good luck next round! :D Sources: tinyurl. com/luju7c tinyurl. com/k8o7x74 tinyurl. com/ny45otg tinyurl. com/mxg5zlz