hmm...what's the big fuse about citizen's united. Aren't corporations and other interest groups already spending money on elections?

There has been a lot of public and heated debate over the recent Supreme Court decision about a corporation’s free speech right to spend a lot of its shareholder’s dollars on elections to support the candidate of his or her choice. (I guess it’s recent on as far as Supreme Court decisions go). I really don’t want to belabor the facts of the case because this is an election year and everybody who is already tired with the spam campaign ads on internet, radio, television, social networks, school, as well as from their obnoxious know-it-all friend or and family member has already been told some version of the facts and a hundred reasons why the like or dislike the decision. But was the decision really a groundbreaking decision or did we just perceive it as so? Are corporations not already spending a lot of their shareholders dollars on candidate they perceiver as favorable to their corporate agenda? And at the same time, haven’t union, churches, and other interest groups been doing the same, even if it wasn’t that obvious?

I was born Catholic but I used to go to on occasion during my Church going years attend a few evangelical and other non-denominational church sermons and I was quite in awe how integrated the Church was to the State. During some of those sessions, especially during election year the pastor or as other churches would call it the preacher would publically advocate that its members vote or support a certain candidate because that specific candidate’s views were more in tune with that churches’ doctrinal views. These were not merely roque preachers/pastors or churches, it was a general practice in the “non-profit,” non-tax-paying, soul-saving industry, which operated more as a for-profit corporation than a church. Although, they didn’t directly sponsor a candidate or they advised their constituents to do so in the lord’s name.

This premise does not only apply to churches, but also labor unions and other professional or social interest groups with a lot of dough at their disposal. It is an irrefutable fact that most people who belong in any social or professional interest group tend to vote a certain way of support a certain candidate or party. In fact, every Conservative knows that the AFL-CIO, ACLU, Trial Lawyers Associations, and other workers and socialist interest groups tend to support liberal leaning candidates. At the same time, every Liberal know that the NRA, Planned Parenthood, regional and national business associations, and etc always tend to support conservative leaning candidates. These groups, whether they are liberal or conservative leaning, typically indirectly or sometimes even openly market candidates of their choices through their annual meetings or newsletters. Furthermore, some of the candidates running for public offices usually are members of such organizations come from such organizations.

Going back to corporations, it is already a known fact that corporations have already been spending a lot of money elections for quite some times now. According to Federal Election Commission, corporate spending on presidential election has nearly quadrupled since the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Buckey vs Valeo. Like in other cases involving the churches, unions and interest groups, corporations have since the founding of this nation been very active in the election process, spending large sums of money on candidates of their choices. Thus, there is really nothing new under the sun.

I think if anything, Citizens United, merely affirmed as well as legalize a practiced that is already widespread in the election industry. Corporate or non-corporate spending has been a part of the electoral process for a long time and its here to stay. I think the good thing if any that the decision does or will do is that it would provide a disclosure forum for some of the more sinister corporate or non-corporate groups to voluntarily come out of the shadows and make themselves known to the public, as well as the candidate because the election spending process is now legal.