Since the 1800s, money’s involvement in politics has been a debated issue because corporate wealth can impact and influence consumers and push an unfit candidate through an election. Citizens United, which granted corporations the right to endorse and denounce any candidate they choose, has been a highly debated Supreme Court case regarding campaign financing, and “all too many commentators… have voiced their displeasure at a decision that handed corporate interests a powerful tool by which they can dominate the political arena at the expense of ordinary citizens” (Epstein 639). With all the negative attention surrounding Citizens United, a major question develops: how can we, as a country, solve the issues and dangers of the Supreme Court …show more content…
This article points out the obstacles we, as a country, would have to overcome in order to reverse Citizens United. 80% of Republicans and Democrats oppose Citizens United (Cole 15), but they do not think they can combat corporate wealth without money. Another issue is, as Cole points out, “The precedents extending First Amendment protection to campaign spending date back to 1976… The Court generally follows precedent, and overrules past decisions only rarely” (13). Cole points out that recent cases (those regarding same sex marriage and the individual right to bear arms) have proved that a “longer process of small, incremental steps” is a more effective reversal strategy than dramatic measures like proposals to pass an amendment (13-14). The NRA and gay right advocacy groups did not go directly to the Supreme Court, they went to the “hinterlands”--state governments. When groups go to state governments, they can go to the states most sympathetic to their issue, and then, they can press for legislation. Already, “Maine, Connecticut, Arizona, Seattle, and New York City have each adopted generous public-financing schemes to reduce the influence of private wealth” (Cole 14). Their laws allow average citizens to make small donations toward any candidate, which reduces a candidate’s reliance on “Big Money,” and these laws also “encourage politicians to pay attention to all their constituents, not just the wealthy ones” (Cole 14). Not only do these laws provide voters with more of a voice, they provide equal opportunity for candidates to win. Cole said, “If campaign-finance-reform advocates can learn from the gun-rights and marriage-equality struggles and focus on incremental progress at the state and local levels…, they have a chance of not only altering constitutional law, but also restoring faith in the democratic process” (15). I think Cole presented the most effective solution to reverse