In his 2010State of the Union address, President Obama admonished the Supreme Court by stating, ‘‘Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.’’
It’s no secret that money plays a role in elections. It is the driving force that determines the support that a candidate may receive in his or her campaign. In the past, candidates could run in elections based on their political agenda and the ideas that they could bring to the table. Since the advancement in media, politics have focused on the negative. A candidate either spends money on advancing his image or attacking his opponent (s). Allowing corporations to be more transparent in their contributions is the equivalent of legalizing bribery and corruption. The average American citizen is discouraged from even voicing his/her opinion when a financial contribution can speak louder than words. Potential candidates who may not have a strong financial background will have to look for support in wealthy contributors catering to their needs as opposed to standing by his agenda.
It is an assumption on the part of President Obama to say that foreign corporations are able to control the laws of America. The disclosure of contributions and their donors would help prevent the interference of foreign contributors from influencing American politics. Most people believe the reversal of the law will open up the floodgates for money to directly rule politics. While it is an open-secret that money contributions have aided elections for many years, media corporations were legally the only ones allowed to voice their opinion, supportive or not of any candidate. Non-advocacy organizations, small to mid-size corporations will be able to support and contribute to the...