Judiciary Governing and Selection

Judicial Review

Judiciary -governing and selection

Judiciary: Article Review

One of the most controversial decisions in recent memory of the U.S. Supreme Court was that of Citizens United, which effectively declared corporations 'persons' in terms of their ability to fund political campaigns through political action committees (PACs). According to Thomas B. Edsall's article "Cash and carry" for The New York Times, Citizens United and "a series of related cases, especially SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, which was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, have not just gutted campaign-finance reform. They have undermined the democratic character of the presidential nomination process by empowering the rich to exert disproportionate control over it" (Edsall 2012). Edsall excoriates the recent Citizens United decision, stating it has fundamentally undermined the democratic process.

In the past, the label of 'activist judges' has usually been wielded by conservatives against justices perceived to be liberal. However, in Citizens United, it is liberals, by and large, who have accused the conservative-dominated courts of interfering with the ability of elections to be held in a free and fair manner. This is not the first time that liberals have been frustrated with the Court. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt's struggles with the elderly, conservative Supreme Court during the 1930s is a recent example). Edsall accuses the Court both of overstepping its bounds and not understanding the full ramifications of how campaigns are funded. "The high court suggested that huge contributions would not corrupt candidates or create the appearance of corruption, because the money would go to technically independent expenditure committees. It would be difficult to find a campaign consultant for either party who would say that the court's view reflected political reality" (Edsall 2012).

'Super-PACs' dominated by corporate money have had a strong influence in the trajectory of the current Republican primary race and its likely winner. Newt Gingrich was able to keep his flagging campaign afloat with PAC money. "Romney was twice able to resurrect his campaign, in Iowa and Florida, because of the backing of a super PAC. Armed, as of Jan. 31, with nine contributions of $1 million or more from six men and three corporations and 14 more contributions of $500,000 to $750,000, Restore Our Future did the job" (Edsall 2012). Even within his own party, Romney has been excoriated as a candidate that only understands and supports the lifestyle of the ultra-rich, and one of the cornerstones of the economic plan of his campaign is tax breaks for the wealthiest members of society.

In theory, the Court's decision demanded a separation between the PAC and the candidate's actual campaign, but that is not how it has operated in practice throughout the Republican primary, the most recent, full 'testing ground' of what a post-Citizens United America resembles. If Edsall's analysis is correct, the actions of the Court have changed the way elections are funded, and, by extension, who gets elected in a permanent fashion. The Court has fundamentally changed the very nature of democracy, and who holds power at a critical juncture in our history. So long as there are no official, direct links between a PAC and a campaign, corporations can give unlimited funds and the PACs can raise unlimited funds. This favors candidates who support wealthy, corporate interests.