Supreme Court Ruling Means Money Could Influence U.S. Electoral Process
Following the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that eliminated caps on overall campaign contributions, Americans across the country fear that money may now have an undue influence on our nation’s politics and the workings of the government.
“I’m just afraid the wealthy will have a disproportionate amount of say in what goes on,” said Barbara Mancuso of Easton, PA. “I mean, what about the average person? I’d hate to see our equal place at the table taken away.”
“Up until now, it’s been an even playing field,” said Jack Harper of Santa Clarita, California. “You wanted a certain law to be passed, you called up your congressman, he went to lunch with you, took your advice and voted that way. Now, the individual may not have as much influence. He may listen to corporations or big, powerful entities with deeper pockets more than to the average American.”
The decision follows the ruling in the Citizens United case, in which the court ruled that government does not have the power to limit corporate donations to political campaigns. The two rulings, both favoring moneyed, powerful interests, give some people pause.
“Corporations are people, I get that,” Mr. Harper said. “I mean, I love McDonald’s like I love my brother. More, actually. So I get that. But I don’t want it to get to the point where McDonald’s has more say than I do in how tax laws or other legislation is written and voted on. Because that would be a shame.”