Name: Tim Matista

Topic: Lobbying.
Lobbying causes a major breakdown in the democratic ideals by giving the haves a
louder voice than the have nots.
It is almost impossible to have your voice heard over those who have more money. The
party system is founded on two opposing masses of unparalleled wealth locked in an eternal
shouting match and without said wealth it is impossible for a third party to have any relevance.
The only way for someone to make their voice heard is to join a side which only adds to the
problem.
Lobbyists piggyback on this by offering one side or the other money that could give them
the edge over the other party. Whichever party makes any reforms that the lobbyists require,
they get the money. This allows corporations to mold our political parties to their wishes.
Links:
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters
Explanation of cit united case and good quotes
https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/08-00205qp.pdf
Official supreme court document (hard to read but primary source)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States
Info on lobbying in general

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC
Case would have put a limit on how much a company could spend in donations
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000129
How much exxon lobbied
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F#Batteries
Suppression of electric car
http://faculty.som.yale.edu/FionaScottMorton/documents/StateFranchiseLawsDealerTermination
sandtheAutoCrisis.pdf
The auto industry influencing government.
Quotes:

Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution even if

the speaker is a corporation.

Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo,

limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its
members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.
BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to
electioneering communications protected from prohibition by the appeal-to-vote test, FEC v.
Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2667 (2007) ("WRTL II), because such communications
are protected "political speech," not regulable campaign speech, id. at 2659, in that they are not
"unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate,"
The net result of all these laws is to raise profits for car dealers. State legislatures may be willing to
do this because dealers represent an identifiable source of state employment and tax revenue
The oil industry, through its major lobby group the Western States Petroleum Association, is brought
to task for financing campaigns to kill utility efforts to build public car charging stations.

Paragraph:
If spending is speech then one can easily make two deductions: those who have more to spend
can speak more, and not spending means not speaking. With that logic, the lower and middle
class cannot protest, because without funding the opposition they are not taking part in the
conversation. This leaves millions of voices unheard, so much for democracy.
The supreme courts ruling on McCutcheon v. FEC, which would have imposed a limit on how
much a corporation could contribute, was that it is political speech not campaign speech and
therefore in unregulatable. Without limitations, a donation of several hundred dollars to promote
clean energy is worthless when compared to the estimated 29 million exxon mobil lobbied in
2008 alone.
When offered massive sums of money, the will of the legislative branch crumbles. The
automobile industry and major petrol sellers on multiple occasions have used their influence to
undermine technological progress that would put them out of business. The oil industry, through
its major lobby group the Western States Petroleum Association, is brought to task for financing
campaigns to kill utility efforts to build public car charging stations. The net result of all these laws
is to raise profits for car dealers. State legislatures may be willing to do this because dealers
represent an identifiable source of state employment and tax revenue