The recent Supreme Court decision allowing large corporations to run their own political ads - Essay Example

However, just before the crucial 2010 midterm congressional election period, this law was partly upended by the United States Supreme Court. In the case of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 votes, ruled that corporations and unions were constitutionally allowed to spend as much money as they can on campaign ads supporting particular candidates (Francia 16). However, the corporations were still prohibited from donating money directly to campaigns. Ever since its ruling, the court’s decision to allow large corporations run their own ads has received mixed reactions among politicians, scholars, lawyers and the rest of the citizens.

Whereas some people have been in favor of the ruling, others have strongly contested the decision, terming it a threat to democracy (Carney 2). Those against the ruling argue that the decision favors republicans, threatens democracy and allows for election interference by the corporations, as they can now run their own ads in support of a specific candidate (Kosterlitz 5). However, this is just fear of unknown. For as much as the ruling might have negative implications on the federal elections, these arguments are not true and, as far as I am concerned, the decision will not have drastic effects on the politics of the United States of America, especially the elections.

Therefore, to arrive at the conclusion that the ruling will not threaten the democracy of this nation but actually help it, this paper will make several observations. First, the argument that the court’s ruling greatly favors republicans is not true because, as opposed to the previous years, nowadays most large corporations hedge their bets and give donations to both parties. In fact, they give donations to whoever is in power, or possibly going to be (Carney 2). This explains why the Obama campaigns were able to do so well.

All the funds used in the campaign did not only come from individuals, a huge portion came from large corporation, that is, their PACs. Therefore, the ruling will not favor republicans, but it will favor the most promising or prominent party. Secondly, the claim that large corporations will greatly dominate or interfere with the politics of the country is perplexing (Carney 2). For quite a long time even before the ruling, large corporations, such as New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, among others, have had the ability to further their political needs.

Under the political action committees (PACs), they have been given the permission to support and donate to political parties or candidates. Moreover, most unions or corporate lobbyist PACs have been running ads about various issues or in support of various candidates. Therefore, it a fact that this ruling will not change the politics or the election of the country, but it will just eliminate the middleman, PACs (Carney 2). Finally, the ruling is good for small businesses because it could promote free market competition.

Previously, before the court’s ruling, small businesses could not compete effectively with the large corporations because they had no PACs and lacked money to give to powerful lobbyists, who had PACs, to act on their behalf. Large corporations, such as Wal-Mart, had great influence on political issues of the country and, thus, received favors from the political divine, leaving the small firms to deteriorate further and go out of business. However, with the ruling, the small firms