Chapter 14

1)
The author describes behaviors which include corporations and labor groups donating and
continually pouring money into politics and political campaigns without regard to the individual.
The influence has become so overwhelming that no ordinary person is able to make a
meaningful difference as hundreds of millions of dollars come into politics through dark money
groups.

In the context of the scenario, the influence of money results in elected officials who are
beholden to interest groups that supported their campaigns and expect something in return. A
politician may receive so much money from an industry that they feel obliged to return the
favor with favorable policy and legislation.

This impact can be lessened by linkage institution such as the media as they investigate the
sources of funding, monitor policy changes, and hold politicians accountable for their choices.
Furthermore, political parties could be a middleman between interest groups and candidates as
they receive funds and distribute them to candidates, thus lessening the influence of a group
over any one official.

2)
The two graphs show how ad spending was disproportionately spent in the top states when
compared to the rest of the country in 2012. One graph shows the top 3 states receiving more
than half of total ad spending, and the other shows the top 10 states receiving more than 95%
of the spending ad spending.

Ad choices differ between states because no two state are identical. Some may need
persuasion about candidates, others may need to be encouraged to vote, and-most
importantly- some may be safe states which generally vote for one party. The last reason fuels
this divide: swing states receive more ads as campaigns fight for attention and votes while safe
states are already expected to vote for one candidate or the other.

This shows a weakness in the election process as it reveals how candidates truly only have to
campaign in a few select states to win election. Campaigns spend a vastly disproportionate
amount on a few states that hold more electoral votes and more swing voters than the rest of
the country.

3)
The First Amendment's free speech clause is relevant to both McConnell v. FEC and Citizens
United v. FEC.

In Citizens United, the Court grappled with corporations and labor unions who wanted the
ability to spend money on elections without certain BCRA restrictions. In McConnell, the case
was centered around candidates and leaders who wanted the ability to support each other.
 Chapter 14

With this in mind, the Court decided against McConnell in his case as politicians already had
ways to express speech, but they sided with Citizens United in their case because corporations
would have had limited speech without the ability to donate.

Interest groups who disagree with Citizens United can donate candidates who will legislate
against the ruling, organize phone and letter campaigns, draft legislation for officials, and
continue to file lawsuits trying to overturn the Citizens United decision.

4) Should Citizens United v. FEC be overturned?

Although corporations need to be represented in politics, the Citizens United decision

should be overturned because of individuals' free speech and the plurality of voices.

The First Amendment to the Constitution was created to secure the freedoms of speech
and press for citizens. As such, it logically follows that only individuals should be able to engage
in political speech through something like financial contributions to campaigns; however, the
Citizens United case ended in a decision which extended First Amendment rights to
corporations and labor unions. This idea entirely goes against the intentions of the founders
and incorrectly assumes that a group of people has the same right as an individual would.

Furthermore, the presence of corporations in our politics hurts the foundational idea of
plurality of voices. As is seen in Federalist no. 10, the republic was meant to benefit from a
plurality of voices which would cancel each other out and result in a consensus position. The
Citizens United decision cripples this concept as corporations suddenly have the chance to flood
the conversation with their own contributions and entirely overrule contributions any individual
could make to oppose them. A plurality of voices is dependent on no voice being significantly
louder than the others, but Citizens United opens up that possibility.

Many who supported the agreement may argue that corporations need representation
too as they are taxed; referencing the idea of "no taxation without representation." However,
these corporations would still have ample opportunity to express opinions and influence
politics in a more fair way without Citizens United. Company leaders can vote, they can use
social media to promote a message, they can contribute as a PAC and as individuals, and they
can lobby politicians. Corporations and unions would still have chances to participate without
an unlimited ability to donate to political campaigns, so it would only be fair to level the playing
field by overturning Citizens United and restoring free speech and plurality of voices to citizens.