An Our Philadelphia Blog Post
Citizens United and the future of elections
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission turns a century of election law on its head by giving corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. Voters and the media alike are up in arms about the Court's decision. What can be done to counteract what has been called "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case"?
Empower candidates who wish to fight for the rights of the American public rather than those of the big corporate donors who already dominate the debate over health care, the environment, and nearly every other aspect of public policy. “Congress must take on the insider Washington money culture if it wants to make the changes voters are demanding. The way to do that is by passing the Fair Elections Now Act,” stated Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign, in a January 21 Common Cause press release.
The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752, H.R.1826), a bipartisan bill that currently has 124 cosponsors in the House, blends small donations from voters with public financing to allow candidates to run issue-based, competitive campaigns and force them to appeal to voters for support rather than wealthy special interests. Many states, namely Connecticut, Maine, and Arizona, already have successful systems of public financing that elect and re-elect both conservatives and liberals who are focused on the social and economic health of citizens, not the well-being of corporations. Philadelphia's own Congressman Bob Brady chairs the Committee which will vote on the Fair Elections Now Act. In December, an Inquirer editorial urged to him to use his considerable influence to support the bill should the worst happen and the Supreme Court open the door to unlimited corporate spending on elections.
Bob Edgar, former U.S. Congressman and President of Common Cause, spoke with Keith Olbermann on Jan 22 about the Court's decision and the Fair Elections Now Act. You can watch the video here.
This site is amazing!
Information is power. Seeing how much wealthy special interests give to candidates will show how unjust and short-sighted this Supreme Court decision is.
The Extreme Court's decision in this case is a travesty and a prime example of judicial activism. The court overruled long-standing precedent and decided an issue not advanced by either party to the case. It does not take a Constitutional scholar to understand that given the excesses of the British government at the time the colonies were founded, our Founding Fathers were very concerned about the rights of individuals. This decision makes a mockery of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment in particular. Money is not speech. Corporations are not people. The First Amendment does not protect the right of corporations, many of which are not own by citizens of this Country.
I really like the website, and the aims of the people who created it. Common Cause is an excellent group, and to create transparency behind campaign finance (a generally opaque business) is a noble and important goal.
This Supreme Court decision illustrates the vital necessity of the work this website is doing. Now more than ever, we must be able to follow the track of campaign contributions to our lawmakers.