Political advertisement in the United States has always been very big, but how about now when there is no limit to how much they can spend on it? In this article here explains that the Citizens United has won a supreme courts voting that political parties now have no limit to how much they are allowed to spend on their campaigns. Two points brought up in this article by which it seems that explain with the unlimited spending that now it is that people with big wallets now can control or corrupt politicians.
First, Citizens United announced the fiction that a candidate can be corrupted if a corporation gives him money for his election, but there is no risk of corruption if corporations spend that same money to support the candidate’s election. So if Massey Coal gives $10,000 to a candidate to spend on his campaign, the candidate might feel improperly in their debt and pay that debt back through corrupt political favors. But if Massey Coal spends $1 million on political ads to support his election, five members of the Supreme Court said that the elected beneficiary of that spending wouldn’t be improperly indebted to his corporate benefactor.
Second, Citizens United says that our democratic government is not corrupted when those who can afford to spend huge sums of money on behalf of candidates have influence over or access to elected officials, and that the appearance of influence and access will not cause Americans to lose faith in their democracy.
There is no difference between giving someone money towards helping their campaign as to their advertisement. Both lead to the same outcome of the politician maybe feeling like they should pay back the person or company in favors. I don’t know how the five members of the supreme court could not have seen this. And the second part just shows that if a person is of the 1% of Americans who have the ability to throw their money around to help influence who they want just means that now in America it is possible to buy an election legally. One of the worst parts is you don’t even have to put your own name out when you give money towards a campaign. I believe that if they were to give money that their name should be said to the public or be able to be accessed by the public.
This is not what democracy is about. How much money is used in ads should not be unlimited because of then there will be always people who wont be able to advertise as much as another with more money. There should be a limit to stop people with lots of money getting a more say than someone without. Money should not be involved in how politicians get elected.
As for the past few years the amount of money being used in the ad campaigns has risen but now with an unlimited amount has turned politics into a game of who has the most money has the most power towards an election. And now the general public has even less of a say compared to people with money, democracy has turned into a game.
