Money is indispensable in the United States campaign. Without money the party candidates cannot reach voters and make them interested in voting. However one candidate having access to too much money is no good. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed which prohibits corporations and unions  and using their large amounts of funds to make independent expenditures for speech that advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. Later in 2008 Citizens United released a documentary promoting Hillary Clinton. Citizen United brought the FEC to court on grounds that BCRA of 2002 did not apply to Hillary and the ads. The supreme court ruled to overturned the bipartisan campaign reform act so that restrictions on independent expenditures cannot be applied to corporations and interest groups thus they are able to spend an unlimited amount of money to support campaigns. Corporations spending unlimited amounts of money on campaign Should not be considered as free speech according to Justice Kennedy because money is a danger to Democracy.

Over the years the United States government has in many cases where money was used to win elections, caused corruption and problems in government. One example of this is in early 1900s candidates began to campaign solely by buying expensive advertisements on television which would cost a large amount of money, money that was being given by corporations and unions to campaigns runners. President Roosevelt took a lot of money from corporations and interest groups in order to campaign for the election. Years later after Roosevelt won, the fact that the money he had been given was the reason he won was brought to light. Therefore it return to giving candidates funds for the election the candidate would owe the corporation a favor after they have won. This is dangerous for government because this gives corporation leverage on government to express their ideas above the masses. This will cause a problem because if a small group of wealthy individuals have more influence in government than a larger group of minority. The people would then lose their voice in the government that is supposed to be for the people.  

     Money corrupts government because the more money a candidate has the better their chances of winning are. The candidate knows that more money will increase their chances of winning office, therefore they may try to gain more money to run their campaign instead of focusing on what the people want. Candidates may also focus more on the wealthy which is only a small fraction of the people. As a result money should be limited by the government to protect the people according to court case Austin (Citizen United v. FEC 2010). 

Because everyone is spending huge amounts of money, candidates that does not have as much money is usually automatically eliminated even though they may be very capable. This is especially true when the government does not limit the amount of money a candidate can spend from what he or she owns. Although many may believe that money is used as a form of speech, does more money give candidates a stronger voice? And if so will it be fair for some people with this stronger voice to have such a strong influence on elections.

Citation

Jeffrey Toobin. 2012. “Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Decision.” New York: The New Yorker (May 21).

McCain-Feingold law was passed in 200e

FEC prohibited the Hillary Clinton movie 

Citizen united sued the FEC 

Sec 434

Sect 441

Bipartisan act