In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that money is a form of free speech. Citizens United, wishing to run a film for digital cable subscribers about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was running for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 Presidential Elections, lobbied against the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibited corporations and labor unions from using their funds to promote a particular federal candidate. They argued the ban deterred their right to distribute the film as free speech since it is technically a corporation making a political statement. The Supreme Court ruled in the company's favor. The Supreme Court ruled that outside spending--money spent to influence voters' decision--on elections was a form of free speech. This ignited a debate over the correlation between money and free speech. Is it considered free speech if a multibillion dollar corporation spends millions promoting a particular candidate that would benefit them personally? Would it be considered ethical if, say, Apple were to spend billions of dollars on ads promoting a candidate that would favor their interests? Since the ruling, it has become a targeted point of reference for putting more money into politics. Companies could have a bigger say than individuals if they have more money to finance their special interests than a single individual. Certain rules about how spending money is basically a bribe are still in check, sure. But the ruling has significantly blurred the lines between a campaign donation as a form of free speech and a bribe. A corporation cannot give millions of dollars to a campaign directly. But they can spend that much money promoting said candidate. So, bribes are still illegal. But what is considered a bribe is now more unclear. The ruling also brings up on the debate as to whether or not corporations are considered people. It insinuates that corporations are, in fact, people and have every right, no matter how egregious it may seem to a lot of people, to speak their minds by promoting a candidate. Naturally, the ruling led to a surge in Super PACs. Super PACs are outside groups that accept an unlimited amount of contributions from individuals and corporations to promote a particular candidate. Again, the money is not given directly to a candidate. Andrew Prokop, writing about the "Citizens United Era" of politics showed a chart by Center for Responsive Politics that showed Super PAC money raising from $338.4 million in the 2008 Presidential Election to $1,038 million in the 2012 Presidential Election. So, presidential elections are obviously more contentious since you have both individuals and corporations fiercely spending money to ensure enough voters side with a candidate. But the catch with Super PACs is that they have to publicly disclose their donations. This has also led to a surge of "dark money", money spent by nonprofits that refrain from identifying their donors. Basically the same thing as a Super PAC but without having to make it public. Not only are corporations allowed to spend money promoting a candidate, they can also do so in secrecy. Prokop shows another chart by the Center for Responsive Politics that exemplifies and increase in dark money spending from $69 million in 2008 to $310 million in 2012. Overturning it, of course, would be no easy task. The Supreme Court has the final say about how the US Constitution is interpreted. So, there are two ways to overturn the ruling. The first would be either a constitutional amendment. That would require 38 states to adopt it. But even though it seems really difficult, that does not mean we should try. Constitutional amendments are rare, but they do happen! The second would be to appoint enough justices that would support overturning the ruling. But that is also difficult given liberal justices would need to fill at least two seats that would be left vacant by conservative justices. Those are also rare, but, again, they do happen! Money and politics have always had a contentious relationship. Everyone has the right to spend money however they want so long as it's not spent shadily. But money is not free speech. Money is a commodity made up by people as a means of ensuring survival. As we have seen throughout human history, money has been the source of a lot of problems. Furthermore, the United States Constitution never explicitly makes a statement about money, let alone about its usage in politics. Money has no business with the direction of the federal government. We need to take it out. CITATIONS “Citizens United v. FEC.” FEC.Gov, 2010, www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec. Prokop, Andrew. “The Citizens United Era of Money in Politics, Explained.” Vox, 16 July 2015, www.vox.com/2015/2/9/18088962/super-pacs-and-dark-money.

Corporations are not people. Money is not speech. Corporate leaders complained about inadequate representation in government. But can the CEO vote? Yes. Can the employees vote? Yes. Therefore they are not prevented from representation. Coca-Cola is not a "person" and has no right to government representation beyond simply what its members possess. If money were speech and were to be protected by freedom of speech, then essentially any bribery anywhere should be legal. Bribing police would be "freedom of speech". Funding terrorist organizations or enemies of the state would be "freedom of speech". So not only are corporations not people and therefore not entitled to any rights beyond the rights of its individual constituents, but bribery of the government doesn't even qualify as "freedom of speech" and thus wouldn't be able to be defended, anyway. It was purely a power grab by corporate entities, and its statement infringes directly on the stability of the government, the stability of the economy, and the value placed on American lives. It exists solely to state that America is not a country of people, but purely a corporate hub with a few citizens here and there that it has to put up with.