"People Don't Control Politics, Money Does"

Money talks. That was the message sent to the nation by the Supreme Court in the
2010 case Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Committee, which overturned the attempts of
Congress to control the political activities of corporations. Due to a recognition of political
spending as a form of speech, and considering status of corporate personhood, the justices for
the majority concluded that corporations could engage in unlimited political advertising and
other types of advocacy. This deliberation was narrowly constrained by requirements that
candidates and parties neither directly receive corporate funds nor collaborate on political
maneuvers with said corporations.
The prevailing opinion seems to accept the notion that the money is indeed speech.
Many see the practice of corporate lobbying and political pandering as promoting democracy
and its marketplace of ideas, even in the vast amounts flooding elections and campaigns. For
example Justice Anthony Kennedy claimed that, There is no such thing as too much speech.
Others disagree, such as Justice Stephen Breyer who noted that, Where enough money calls
the tune, the general public will not be heard. He also notes that corporations have more to
spend on political advocacy than the average citizen and that the speech of the former will
drown out the speech of the latter. In other words, there may be more speech, but it will all
be from the same few voices.
Such unlimited spending is compounded by a second Supreme Court decision that
expanded the ability of money to influence politics. In McCutcheon v. the Federal Election
Committee the Supreme Court ruled to remove the aggregate limits that were previously in
place. Individuals were prohibited from giving more than $48,600 combined to all federal
candidates. They were also prohibited from giving more than $74,600 combined to all parties
and political action committees. These limits were initially set in place to prevent individuals or
corporations from circumventing base limits by contributing to several groups. This court ruling

essentially allows any citizen to give campaign contributions to as many different candidates
and political parties as they want. This allows the economic elite freedom to invest in numerous
candidates and ensure that their agenda has better odds of succeeding.
In a limited sense these two decisions have expanded individual liberty the ability of
corporations and individuals to spend their money as they please. In a wider sense, however,
these decisions have undermined our democracy and thus limited the liberty of the vast majority
of Americans. Moreover, it will be shown that the corrupting influence of money extends back in
time before these Supreme Court decisions, which have simply exacerbated them.
Money is essential for running a successful campaign. Politicians must work diligently to
acquire donors to help them succeed in their campaign. This allows political stakeholders to
offer donations in exchange for favors with the expectation that the politician will keep their
private interests in mind. If they dont keep the interests of their donors in mind they lose
funding for future campaigns. According to a policy review that yale conducted, Elected officials
spend far too much time raising money for campaigns, and not enough time carefully
considering legislation or listening to constituents. (Yale Law & Policy Review, 2010, p. 245).
This mindset ensures that our elected officials have their donors interests in mind above the
population they are elected to represent.
An additional motivation for politicians to remain faithful to their donors is the incredibly
lucrative opportunity in becoming a lobbyist. Lawrence Lessig explains that, Members, staffers,
and bureaucrats have an increasingly common business model in their head, a business model
focused on their life after governments: their life as lobbyists. Fifty percent of the Senate
Between 1998 and 2004 left to become lobbyists, 42 percent of the house (Lessig, 2013).
These representatives have an average increase of salary of 1,452 percent. Clearly there are
many incentives for politicians to keep donor interests in mind over their populations. This
prevents legislation from acting in the best interests of the people and inhibits the primary goals
and functions of a democracy.

Indeed there is significant evidence that those with financial power are better able to
impact the political system. Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern
(2014) performed a large study on a diverse set of policy cases in order to determine how
preferences of income groups impacted laws and decision makers. They found that in 1,779
instances between 1981 and 2002 the economic elite classs policy preferences were
significantly more likely to be adopted into law over the middle class or lower class policy
preferences (Gilens & Page,2014, p.568). The results of this study are disturbing to those who
believe in democracy. Gilens (2014) agrees, Our analyses suggest that majorities of the
American public actually have little inuence over the policies our government adopts. We
believe that if policy making is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small
number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously
threatened(577). The definition of democracy is a government that is ruled by the people.
Martin Gilens and Benjamin page have evidence that our country is no longer a democracy but
in fact a plutocracy. A plutocracy is defined as a government that is controlled by the wealthy.
When considering this evidence it is important to note that a majority of the data
compiled before the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases had been resolved in the Supreme
Court. This would imply that the influence of money has increased and could provide further
evidence to the wealthy being in control of American government and policy. Our government
was designed for a democracy. The fact that our country is by definition a plutocracy means
that we are dealing with a corruption of our political system. Corruption is defined as the
process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or
meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased. Gilens and Page have proven with
these studies that our political system is no longer what it was intended to be.
Citizens united vs the FEC significantly altered the landscape of our government. One of
the changes that the supreme court allowed when making their decision on Citizens United is
the autonomy that employees have a right to expect in their workplace. When the supreme court

made this decision they allowed corporations and unions to make independent political
expenditures. However they also allowed them to bypass the regulatory system that Congress
created to protect employees from workplace political coercion. A individual worker has no
influence in what a super PACs decision making process. This essentially means that the
individual worker is engaging in conduct that he may deem unethical or against his political
alignment. Thus it is inevitable that the average worker will not benefit from the same agenda
as a multi-million or billion dollar company. When the supreme court ruled against the FEC they
essentially muted the workers of these corporations simply due to a lack of finances and political
influence.
Similarly, the Supreme Courts decision to classify a corporation as a person was
intended to protect the collective voices of that corporation. Indeed the reason a corporation can
be considered a person is to benefit the companies collective interests. However, it is
impossible for a company to speak for its entire collective when this country is so beautifully
diverse and we have the freedom of speech to speak to this diversity, particularly when an
individuals contribution is not considered as financially powerful as the corporation itself. Such
dynamics are well documented and have the garnered the concern of many experts. For
example, a review by Harvard Law (2014) identifies that, Before more employers engage in
such coercion, before more employees are forced to face a choice between losing their jobs or
participating in political speech with which they disagree, Congress can and should act
now(p.690)
Citizens United is not the only questionable decision by the Supreme Court in regards to
the deregulation of campaign finance. In the case of McCutcheon v. FEC, The Supreme Court
found that the aggregate limits violated the First Amendment because they unjustifiably
restricted speech and did not serve the permissible governmental interest of preventing quid pro
quo corruption or the appearance of corruption(Oklahoma City University Law Review, Black,
2014 p. 490). This regulation did infact limit speech in certain regards as it also violates the first

amendment as well. It allows those that have more to contribute to have better means of
political speech. This regulation did not actually prevent speech in any regards because the
individual that was wishing to contribute was not in any way silenced. They were allowed to
volunteer for an unlimited amount of campaigns as well as contribute monetarily to all the
campaigns as well. It simply regulated contributions so that everyone could contribute equally to
the system. What the Supreme Court decision actually created a dynamic wherein wealthier
parties can afford more speech. This deregulation essentially changed our campaign finance
system to resemble the regulation around the Watergate scandal. Those that agree have been
quoted as stating, Although it is important for the Court to protect the right to freedom of
speech, it must also consider the reason for campaign finance laws to protect the sea of political
speech from being tainted by the black oils of corruption (Oklahoma City University Law
Review, Black, 2014 p. 499).
This decision also allowed an individual or corporation to influence jurisdictions in which
they have no presence and are not stakeholders. For instance corporations can impact laws
regarding pollution or distributions of taxes in areas where they have no presence other than to
dump waste or sell a product. Another example includes political parties gaining the majority in
the House of Representatives through funding a neighboring state's election. The objective is
not to create a ruling body that resembles true majority but to maintain political power. This is
another obvious corruption in the system and allows the voice of the wealthy to reach much
further than those without a huge abundance of money.
The supreme court's action in the last few years have had an incredible affect on the
political landscape. They have deregulated a lot of the laws that were passed through congress
to protect us as citizens and protect the voice we are allowed an unalienable right. Another
obvious piece of evidence that should be considered is that the amount of spending that has
increased since these regulations have been abolished. Outside spending in 2012 totaled more
than $1.3 billion, which was some four times greater than in the 2008 election (Hubert, Chapter

5, Section E.) The 2008 was an extremely important year in politics because of the presidential
election. Which typically caused a dramatic amount of spending increase because of the
primary. Only four years later the spending increased to over one billion dollars. This was also
an important year in the political system because the president was up for reelection. However
spending is usually down when a president is up for reelection. However, as the supreme court
decisions were made prior to this election cycle it is no surprise we saw a dramatic increase in
funding and demonstrates truly compelling evidence that money is influencing the united states
political system.
In conclusion these laws were put into place by congress for a reason, they were
implemented to protect democracy and prevent those with money from having a louder voice
than those who were not so privileged. When the supreme court made these decision to further
unregulated campaign finance they reversed what the FEC was designed to protect. They
legalized corruption and if they continue their current trend we will further destroy democracy
and what it stands for. The evidence is overwhelming since these changes have occurred more
and more money is being dumped into campaign contributions. This ultimately reduces the
voice of everyone who is not in the top tenth of the one percent who control the vast majority of
wealth in our nation. It is imperative for us to set forth in motion new campaign finance
regulation laws that allow everyone to have an equal voice. Our voices need to be heard, and
the constitution empowers and requires that we as citizens stand up against the government
when they fail to respect our unalienable rights. Gilens and Page have shown us that money
indeed talks. Unfortunately, in contrast to the opinion of the Court majority in Citizens United,
unlimited spending in politics doesnt expand the number of voices heard, but rather drowns
them out in favor of the wealthy and corporations.

Feedback received
This is my final draft of the research paper for my U.S. Government and Politics class. In this
paragraph I will note the feedback I received on my rough draft and note the changes in my
essay. The first glaring mistake that I was informed about came from my professor Mary Barker.
Who noted that I had a weak opening to my research paper. She also gave some insight on
content that would give more meat to my essay. As well as the typical mistake of some grammar
mistakes and punctuation. I have adjusted my essay to reflect the recommendation of my
professor. I used the blue print my professor provided to recreate the introduction to my essay. I
also added the paragraph around how money is corrupting politics. As well as fixed the
grammatical errors. I also got some feedback from my parter. She advised some stylistic
changes that have I have incorporated throughout my paper.

Works cited
Hubert, D., Ph.D. (n.d.). Attenuated Democracy: An Introduction to U. S. Government
and Politics. Retrieved from http://pols1100text.weebly.com/
CITIZENS UNITED AT WORK: HOW THE LANDMARK DECISION LEGALIZED
POLITICAL COERCION IN THE WORKPLACE. (2014). Harvard Law Review, 128(2), 669-690.

Udall, S. T. (2010). Amend the Constitution To Restore Public Trust in the Political
System: A Practitioner's Perspective on Campaign Finance Reform. Yale Law & Policy Review,
29(1), 235-252.
Black, S. N. (2015). MONEY MOTIVES: FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION. Oklahoma City University
Law Review, 40(2), 481-501
Dunn, H. (2014). THE CHANGING STANDARDS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REGULATION: THE REAL IMPACT OF MCCUTCHEON V. FEC. Loyola Of Los Angeles Law
Review, 48(2), 573-585
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspect. Polit. Perspectives on Politics, 12(03), 564-581
Lessig, L. (2013, February). Transcript of "We the People, and the Republic we must
reclaim" Retrieved April 26, 2016, from
https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclai
m/transcript?language=en#t-905527