Take a position for or against the citizens united decision and defend you position

Task: Outline i. Introduction ii. Impacts of the Citizens United’s Decision a. Negative Advertisements b. Increased Spending c. Increased Spending d. Demoralization of the Corporations Members e. Anonymous Contributors f. Enrichment tool iii. Conclusion Take a position for or against the Citizens United Decision and defend you position Introduction Citizens United is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that was insistent on airing a jeopardizing film about Hillary Clinton in the 2008 campaigns. According to Foster (1), this clip was meant to tarnish Hillary’s political image and render her unfit for a political position. This action was in violation of the Federal Laws and hence citizens United got an indictment. It was criminal for individuals or corporations to air election material thirty days prior to voting. In 2010, the Supreme Court was in condemnation of the act of Citizen’s United but gave leeway to corporations to unreservedly fund political promotions. This decision insinuates that corporations can engage in election endorsement but they are supposedly pursuing their hidden interests (Foster 1). I disapprove the Citizen United’s decision since it encourages rich corporations to further their ambitions through electoral endorsements, which does not level the competitive platform for potential candidates. Impacts of the Citizens United’s Decision This has led to involvement of corporations in swaying of voters, which is infringing on democracy since the corporations employ vast resources to advance their objectives. The emergence of Political Action Committees (PAC’s) has led to pollution of the political landscape since they are persistent in damaging the names of opposing candidates just to increase their political advantage. Negative Advertisements According to Foster (1), one of the hazards of the Citizen United decision is to enhance outside participation in politics. Foreign firms can now influence elections through donating staggering amounts to the political contenders. Majority of the justices in the court decision were stating that corporations were representative of a collection of individuals hence are creditable to similar freedoms as an individual. This means they have autonomy to participate in electoral activities (Foster 1). They made a reevaluation of constitutional laws to regulate campaign finances that has led to adversely influencing the elections. It is probable that in the forthcoming years super PAC’s will persist in increasing their funding for their candidates through corporations . the negative advertisements tend to disprove a candidate but rather highlight his policies that will give the electorate substantial information to analyze him. Increased Spending Secondly is the threat of the candidates to administer the interests of the corporations rather than the community (Foster 1). Since the proportions that can be utilized in the campaigns is limitless the corporations can be the invisible force behind significant policies that the candidates propose for implementation. Therefore, the candidates will be under duress to sing to the corporations melodies and further spice it up with a dance routine. This would be injurious to the democratic privileges of the public since their interests will be given second consideration, as the candidates will initially fulfill the corporation’s demands. In addition, these contributions could sway the outcome of voting since money has an ingenious way of manipulating concept or ideas to the financiers bidding. Demoralization of the Corporations Members According to Foster (1), the organizations choice may not accommodate the perception of its members and this is likely to instigate conflict within the firm. The corporation entails of employees, stakeholders and their clients who advocate for their services. The corporation can propose a candidate that is in contradiction with the public and this can alter the community’s perception of the company (Foster 1). This will be to the inconvenience of the firm since their earnings can diminish due to their support of an unfavorable candidate. In addition, employees can encompass differing perspectives on the electoral ambitions of the organization (Foster 1). Some of the workforce can admit their allegiance to opposing candidates and will not appreciate their company’s inclination to a candidate they dislike. This can hamper the efficient productivity of the corporation and additionally lead to conflict. Discontent of the corporation’s involvement can extend to some of the stakeholders who can disapprove this. Since a corporation consists of numerous people and interested persons it is crucial for them to maintain a neutral standpoint in electoral endorsements. Anonymous Contributors The nondisclosure factor of the political sponsors will negatively influence the elections since mysterious funds will be sponsoring the contenders. Non-accountability of these finances is dangerous since substantial sums will be utilized in propagating policies that will determine the subsequent president. The financing sums can be inclusive of monies sketchy individuals requiring the candidate’s assistance in pursuing their objectives (Foster 1). The anonymous contributions can include illegal partisans that are not supportive of the public welfare and their influence on the candidates can be detrimental to the country. Consequently, citizens are able to evaluate candidate’s traits depending on his associations or contributors. Disclosure of the electoral contributors will increase confidence in the American public of the transparency of the candidate and his moral perspective (Foster 1). This will improve the authenticity of the elections and diminish the partisan association of corporations in politics, which only promotes their interest. Enrichment tool The political contenders can utilize the finances of the corporations to affluent individuals to enrich themselves (Foster 1). They candidates can initiate accounts in which the sponsors will forward donations and the spare amounts that remain after the candidate’s pursuance irrespective of the outcome will benefit him. Donations are not contractual union hence it is not obligatory to either party to fulfill their role. The candidates can exploit this exception to evade liability and utilize the funds to accomplish personal goals. Conclusion The Citizen United decision did initiate interference of an innocent political landscape with negative advertisements that are financed by corporations and affluent individuals. In addition, political parties are under coercion to submit to the provisions of the corporation (Foster 1). To encourage a transparent and less pessimistic electoral process that will be devoid of numerous negative advertisements can enhance the national interests. It is essential to acknowledge national target surpass individual interests. Work Cited Foster, Chase. Citizens United and its Discontents: Five Hazards, Five Responses. Harvard Kennedy School Review. 2011. Web. 28 March 2012: http://isites. harvard. edu/icb/icb. do? keyword= k74756&pageid= icb. page414548