Mikayla Wright

Give the Voice Back to the People

Put your money where your mouth is, or in the mouth of a political candidate. Well, not literally into her
or his mouth, maybe just tape it to their cheeks. That money you are taping to their cheeks has no limit
and the power to promote your favored candidates and to take down the ones you oppose. And the best
part? Its 100% legit-- Yup, its justifiable by the First Amendment of our Constitution --right?
The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees that every individual in the United States of America
has the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition. A girl, philosopher,
homeless man, muslim, baby boy, father, christian, doctor, ski bum, car mechanic, non-profit worker, and
a journalist; these are true examples of American individuals. Now how would you like it if being an
individual has lost its meaning? Corporate personhood makes it possible for corporations to be seen as
individuals that are equals to you and the Supreme Court supports this corruption of individualism
through Citizens United and Super PACs.
In order to have a just political system that provides equal opportunities and ensures the constitutional
rights for everyone, not just the one percent and large corporations, the Supreme Court needs to rethink
their decision on Citizens United and abolish Super PACs.
Citizens United, a group established in 1988, decided to challenge the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
in 2008 because it prevented anyone from creating any media against a political candidate before election
with uncapped amounts of money. The case moved up to the Supreme Court where in a narrow 5-4 vote,
the Justices voted it constitutional, as long as the political action committees(PACs), would not directly
give money to candidates, but rather use their unbarred money to either support or attack candidates
through the media. The fact that four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices disagreed with the majoritys
decision reveals that Citizens United is a complex and contrasting problem.
Supporters of Super PACs believe they are justifiable because they are utilizing their freedom of speech
and participating in the political system as American individuals. This type of speech is known as political
speech and is important to enhance democracy as John Samples the Director of the Center for
Representative Government at the Cato Institute would say. Samples believes that the power is still in the
hands of the people because, Studies show high spending on negative ads increases voter knowledge and
turnout. Those who have the least knowledge at the start of a campaign benefit the most. Though it is
evident that the money given for Super PACs can produce negative and critical ads, it is crucial to point
out possible flaws in political candidates so the people can make more educated votes. These ads allow
for the people to have a better understanding of the candidates. Super PACs can come from all different
perspectives though, so how do the people truly know whether they are just being told lies to sway their
vote if they cant identify which criticisms are true?
The truth is that they cant. Even if there is another Super PAC from the opposing side, unions and
corporations that have more money than an average person are taking away the rights of Americans. In
the New York Times on October 10, 2015 it was found that Nearly half of the money raised in the 2016
presidential election has come from fewer than 158 families thats 0.0001% of the population. The

government, who is suppose to protect our rights and ensure that these rights are preserved, is actually
allowing these large corporations to take away our right. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, But they
[(corporations)] are not themselves members of We the People by whom and for whom our Constitution
was established.
America the land of Democracy, a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the
people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. As a
country we seem to have lost the true meaning of democracy and become controlled by an oligarchy. We
allowed those who have succeeded most in life to play king and queen corporations in our society, making
decisions for all us and somehow the government fails to see that power to the people has been lost
alongside with democracy. New paragraph and transition to the philosophy.and give more context to
the philosopher (Rawls is a 20th century political philosopher)John Rawls believes that to insure justice
we must look at life through the veil of ignorance. Rawls accepts that everyone will be born into different
situations that enable or prevent them from being successful in life, but to compensate we must create
equal opportunities for justice to be possible. Imagine that you are born into the lowest class and have no
voice when a few people have the power to control our government with their money, you would want
your freedom of speech to be seen as equal for you to participate in the political speech.
Bernie Sanders, a Democratic candidate for the 2016 election and previously the Junior United States
Senator from Vermont, had a pretty strong view on this issue when it first became legal. He sees the flaws
in our system that allow for corporate personhood and how that devalues our individual rights. In a recent
debate, Sanders stated, The absurd Citizens United Supreme Court decision makes a bad situation much
worse. Now, corporations can go right into their treasuries, set up super PACs, and spend as much as they
want, without disclosure, on political advertising...It makes it harder and harder for the voice of the
average American to be heard.
The money exists to pay for honest, reliable facts about the political candidates if we stop allowing
corporations to control our government and thus run our country. The money distributed in our country is
so unbalanced and we need to create a better system. Only once we can reclaim our country and make a
just political system where We the Peoples voices are heard above large corporations, will
individualism have meaning.