A Final Thought on Citizens United

The ultimate impact of the Citizens United decision depends on the effect political advertisement has on voters. If political advertisement has a minimal effect on voters, then the decision is not that big of a deal. On the other hand, if political advertisement has a significant bearing on voters, then the decision will have significant repercussions.

The source for most political campaign advertisement is the television. Because of the television, political campaign advertisement has become more accessible to voters. Seth Grossman, Creating Competitive and Informative Campaigns, 22 YLLPR 351, 353 (2004) (discussing Reliance on Television Advertising). However, television campaign advertisements are not cheap. In 1996, the total cost of political advertisement on television was $400 million. Id. In 2002, the total cost was slightly less than one billion. Id.

These statistics show that the Citizens United decision could have a huge impact on the amount and type of information that voters receive. The decision allows corporations to fund their own political campaigns for or against a political candidate. Because most of the major television networks are controlled by corporations, corporations could give themselves more “free airtime” or give themselves more time slots. Even though the law does require equal opportunity to airtime, the equal opportunity law does not matter if a candidate cannot afford the airtime. Therefore, the Citizens United decision did not level the playing field.

While the decision did not level the playing field, the impact of this discrepancy depends on the effect political campaign advertisement has on voters. Two effects that political advertising has on voters are as follows. Shanto Iyengar, The Effects of Media-Based Campaigns on Candidate and Voter Behavior, 35 INLR 691, 694-96 (2002) (discussing the effect of advertisement). One effect relates to the beliefs and attitudes toward candidates. Id. The second effect relates to voters feelings about campaigns and the election process. Id.

In essence, the effects of political advertisement are based on party affiliation. For example, “[a]ds aired by Democrats are highly persuasive among Democratic voters, less persuasive among non-partisans, and not at all persuasive among Republicans.” Id. Evidence suggests that negative campaign increases voter cynicism and contributes to lower voter turnout. Id. Because negative campaigns dissuade people from voting, many campaign managers use negative campaign advertisement to their advantage. Id. For example, “the initial attack advertisement spawns a negative campaign, fostering cynical attitudes about the candidates, as well as the political process, and lowers turnout.” Id.

Furthermore, recent research suggests that there are moderate campaign effects on voter knowledge, preferences, and even behavior. Jeremy Sheff, The Myth of the Level Playing Field, 75 MOLR 143, 151-56 (2010) (discussing the effects of political advertisement). The evidence suggests that “repeated exposure to a candidate's campaign advertisements appears to moderately and consistently strengthen positive attitudes toward the candidate.” Id. Further, the evidence has showed that “campaign spending by incumbents does not tend to increase their share of the vote, while campaign spending by challengers does.” Id. To place the effect of political campaign spending into perspective, a recent study showed that “$100,000 worth of television advertising at median rates corresponds with only a fraction of a percent change in vote shares in federal legislative elections.” Id.

In conclusion, the Citizens United decision impact on voters relies on the type of information voters receive. While the decision may not level the playing field among campaigners, the effect of the decision is limited to the effect of the campaign information on the voter. As research suggests, the effect is very limited.