The ten-year-old Supreme Court ruling, Citizens United, accomplished at least one thing, an inundation of political spending, already sure to make the 2020 election the most expensive in history. Proponents of the ruling say money in elections constitutes speech. Without money no voice, but critics say with Super PACs spending unlimited amounts of money in elections, vested interests exercise undue influence. (ABC News, January 20, 2020, by Devin Dwyer)
End Citizens United wants the Supreme Court to revisit the decision, but with a stronger conservative lineup, the court is unlikely to abandon its support of the ruling. House Democrats passed a bill to reform elections and establish greater election transparency, but it is unlikely the Senate will take it up. (The Hill, January 21, 2020, by Alex Gangitano with contributions by Harper Neidig)
Law Professor John O. McGinnis lauded Citizens United in an op-ed in the New York Daily News, January 20, 2020, arguing that PACs give ordinary citizens a voice in elections that can be dominated by celebrity power or individual wealth. “…Citizens United allows ordinary citizens to aggregate their constitutional rights in effective form, providing a more robust debate at election time than would be had [in] its absence,” wrote McGinnis.
For related FAC coverage, click here, here and here.