The Pros And Cons Of Campaign Finance Reform

2103 Words9 Pages
Many officeholders, legislators, and members of Academia argue that the supreme court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has single-handedly destroyed American democracy as we know it. This case is one of many that, in essence, allows legalized bribery to occur within the American political system, with most large money contributions to politicians coming from sizably influential corporations. Although many elected officials believe corporate money in politics strengthens democracy, it contrarily damages democracy and is the reason campaign finance reform is the greatest issue facing American politics. Since 1976, the US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of cases like Buckley v. Valeo and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which claims corporations are considered people; and based on First Amendment rights, people are allowed to spend their money within the political arena. Citizens United v. FEC is the supreme court decision that has led to further corruption within the American campaign finance system, while halting efforts to minimize money in politics. Its fundamental claim was that money…show more content…
An example of this would be the chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, being one of Hillary Clinton’s campaign co-chairs during her 2008 presidential run. Considering the amount of power and influence the DNC’s chairperson has over the Democratic nominees, many feel it is necessary for her, at the very least, to disclose officially to the public, her position in Hillary’s 2008 campaign. This relates to campaign finance because in the short term, having elected officials of the same party seems to be a “win” for the party itself. To reform campaign finance the country must not put party politics above actual reform to a system that is corroding the basic principle of
Open Document