The Effects of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

There is not doubt that campaign finance plays an extremely large role in the outcome of any election. The candidate who has the most money has the advantage because they can afford to travel more places to spread their ideas than those who cannot afford to do so. As a result, there have been several attempts to regulate the influence of private funding since the use of electronics became a source of campaigning after World War Two. Here are some of the measures that the government has taken to address this issue:

• 1971: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was enacted to set limits on the amount of money candidates and their families could contribute to their own campaigns.
• 1976: The decision of Buckley v. Valeo gave the Supreme court to uphold the provisions states in FECA but negated the limits of spending by nonparty groups and individuals. 
• 2002: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) banned national party committees from raising small money. 

In January of 2010, Congress concluded Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a 5-4 majority vote that gave big corporations the freedom to speak in elections because they are protected in the First Amendment. Although it still upholds the BCRA's limits on the size of contributions, it still undermines it because the main objective of the bill was to reduce the influence that big corporations have on elections. Many Republicans were very pleased with the outcome of this bill as seen from the words of Senator Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) attorney:

Senator McConnell's attorney Floyd Abrams states that this bill is essential in maintaining the freedoms and liberties that are protected under the First Amendment. He also states that this will serve as protection for media corporations as well as all corporations so that they can participate in elections. According to the Huffington Post, this is a victory for banks on Wall Street, oil companies, and health insurance companies. 

The Democrats on the other hand, for the most part are very unhappy about the outcome of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. After President Obama heard about this he said, "With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest in our politics." Obama is far from being the only Democrat that is outraged by this decision. Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY), was clearly not pleased of the outcome of this decision as seen in this video:









Obviously, Shumer is strongly against this decision. He both tells of how this has thwarted decades of efforts to restrict big corporations as well as foreshadow what is to come in the elections of the future. The most powerful part of his speech is when he says that the winners of the upcoming election are already determined: the big corporations. Therefore, it is likely that whoever wins the election would claim their throne because they had the most support for big corporations. Democrat Representative of the House from Kentucky John Yarmuth goes as far to claim that this bill marked the "day that democracy died":











Yarmuth expands on Shumers beliefs by envisioning how this would effect the nations voters. He said that our voters will no longer be confused of where they fall on Congress' priority list, and that would be behind the corporations who financially endorse them. He also states that this bill will help eliminate some of the partisanship that exists in this country because politicians will be more reliant on their donors as opposed to their party. It will be very interesting to see how the outcome of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will influence both the Republican Primaries and the Presidential Election of 2012.

Obama's Uphill Journey Towards Re-election

If President Obama is elected to a second term in 2012 he would have done it the hard way, especially compared to his road to victory in 2008. His predecessor Former President George W. Bush earned the title as the most unpopular departing president in U.S. history with an approval rating of just 22%. As a result, President Obama defeated John McCain with 53% of the votes because the nation saw him as the face of hope and pointed the blame towards the Republicans for the series of unfortunate events over the span of Bush's eight year term in office.

Unlike in 2008, President Obama does not have his work cut out for him like he did in 2008. Obama inherited an economy in shambles with an unemployment rate of 7.7% when he took office. In August the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate was 9.1%, and to make matters worse,  the Congressional Budget Office Predicts that the nation's unemployment rate will be at 8.2% on election day in 2012. Obviously, having the unemployment rate being higher than it was when he took office is not an encouraging sign. As a result, the hope that fueled his 2008 presidential campaign is far from it once was as depicted in these two graphs:

This graph exemplifies how the overwhelming amount of enthusiasm that surrounded President Obama from when he first took office has slowly been diminishing. Today, only 21% of American voters strongly agree with how Obama is performing as president while 42% strongly disapprove of how he is running the nation. This correlates with the fact that less than half of voters approve of how he is handling our job market as depicted in the graph below:

History is not on Obama's side either. Over the course of U.S. history, the only president who was re-elected at a higher rate than both the projected unemployment rate and the current one was Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Since this time period, elections have never been this high. However, several presidents were not re-elected due to high unemployment rates that were still lower than the projected unemployment rate will be come 2012 election day such as Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. Therefore, if Obama pulls it off, he would beat the odds once again.

There are many reasons other than unemployment as to why President Obama has the lost the large amount of popularity that he had when he first took office. When he took office, America had very high expectations for him. But what many people failed in the past and continue to fail in the present is to realize is that a lot of these expectations were very unrealistic. In 2008, America was in the the greatest economic recession it has been in since the Great Depression. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect drastic improvements in only four years. It was not until FDR's third term that the economy began to improve. Therefore, the American public needs to realize that bringing our country out of a recession takes time and that the quick fix that so many voters desire is impossible. This is not to say that President Obama does not play a part in his failed expectations, but it is not logical to solely put the blame on his shoulders for the state of our economy.

Sources:

1. "Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. 11 Feb. 2009. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml>.

2."Employment Situation Summary." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm>.

3. "President - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/>.<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll>.

4. Barone, Michael. "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™." Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere. 24 Sept. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. 

5. Jaffe, Matthew, and Sunlen Miller. "Can Obama Survive High Unemlpoyment? History Not Kind to Re-electing Presidents with High Unemployment Rates - ABC News." ABC News/Poilitics. ABC, 1 Feb. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-survive-high-unemlpoyment-fdr-reelected-unemployment-2012/story?id=12806938>.

The Same Tactic, But Who Has the Edge?

     According to a poll conducted by the CNN political unit, more than eight out of ten people believe that our economy is in poor shape. As a result, many people are quick to blame President Obama for our struggling economy. That same poll states that his disapproval rating of 55% is the highest it has ever been, only 39% approve of the way that he is handling unemployment, and 36% believe that he is handling our economy well. Now as the next election is approaching, candidates for the Republican nomination are wasting no time in criticizing the ways in which Obama has chosen to improve our nations economy. The link below that contains an except of Republican nominee Mitt Romney's speech at a Tea Party rally in New Hampshire on September 4th displays how he and his fellow nominees are using Obama as a scapegoat for our economy as ammunition for their own campaigns.


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301363-1




     Romney begins his speech by stating statistics that exemplify the poor state of our economy such as the fact that twenty-five million people are out of work and that in the past month there has been absolutely no job creation. He also takes a shot at Obamacare by saying that it is something that has to be terminated. But what made his speech very strong is the way in which he presented his qualifications for president through highlighting his business experience. He spoke of his triumphs and failures in the private sector, and how those experiences have given him the knowledge to turn our economy around. In an article published by the Huffington Post, Romney claimed that the only other candidate running for the Republican nomination who has the private sector experience that is needed in order to fix our economy is Herman Cain, who is struggling in the GOP poles. Also in this article, Romney inferred that his biggest threat in the race, Rick Perry, does not have the tools to be president because he has never held a job in the private sector. However, Perry's recent successes with handling affairs as Governor of Texas have proven to be the reason as to why he is ahead in the polls as seen in the video below:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301249-2

     In this speech in Iowa on August 27th, Perry blamed Obama for the condition of our economy like Romney did, but he took it a step further. He claimed that not only has the Obama administration had no positive impact on our economy, it has made it worse as well. His speech contains statistics such as the fact the one out of every eight Iowans are currently unemployed as evidence. But the most effective portion of his speech is when he  refers to his triumphs in working on Texas' economy as "fighting against the current." This analogy is so powerful because it demonstrates the poor shape that our economy is in as well as exposing the high points of his career as Texas' Governor. 


     Minnesota Governor Michele Bachmann is trailing these two candidates in the polls. Ironically, a plausible explanation for this can be the very same thing that haunted President Obama throughout his road to victory in 2008: her lack of political experience. In Nicole Russell's article in The Atlantic Titled Michele Bachmann's Experience Problem, she will have to face the same problem as President Obama did because she has only been in national office since 2006. It seems ironic because she is also quoted as referring to President Obama as "the worst President in history", and if that is indeed the case, his lack of experience played apart in it. It is also evident that she does not have as many accomplishments as her opponents Romney and Perry. As seen in the video below, Bachmann has no problem with conveying her disgust for Obama, but fails to go in depth about how she can correct these errors. 

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301019-8

    

     As of August 16, 2011, Rick Perry is in the lead with 29%, Mitt Romney has 18%, and Michele Bachmann has 13%. It seems like as of now Perry has the edge but the race is far from over. A plausible explanation for this is that Rick Perry has more to show from the present of what he can do for our country. Although Romney may have 25 years in the private sector, he relies to much on the past to support his credentials. As far as Bachmann is concerned, it seems like she is fishing in the same pool that back in 2008 claimed that Barrack Obama did not have the experience to be president.