Citizens United

Another reoccurring topic this semester has been that of political finances and the media.  We all know that it takes an amazing amount of money to run a successful campaign, with numbers inflating higher and higher as the office sought grows in influence.  While individuals make sizable contributions to political campaigns, they often pale in comparison to those donated by corporate and private interest groups.  In the past, donations were limited by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.  In March of 2009, the political donation world was turned upside down by a case involving Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  Eventually landing in the United States Supreme Court, the case was decided on January 21, 2010. In its holding, the Supreme Court said that significant portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment rights.  The Court essentially said that corporations, labor unions, and Not-for-Profit Organizations had the same rights that individuals held, including in campaign donations.  This case stands as perhaps the most invasive example of governmental involvement in politics for many years.  As a result of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, special interests groups can contribute nearly unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns.
Unlimited amounts of money leads to more and more commercials, and more exposure to the voters through a plethora of mass media channels: internet, magazines, smart phone applications, and social media networks.  How these candidates campaigns are managed plays a large role in the the content and delivery of the ads, as well as the overall feel of the campaign.  Unfortunately, many campaigns elect to take on a very negative tone towards their opponents.  Since the Citizens United case, campaign donations have been unleashed, which has in turn released a slew of negative ad campaigns that are constantly crammed down citizens throats through the various forms of the mass media.
Although there might not be a direct correlation between the increase in negative ad campaigns and the Citizens case, it is my opinion that the Supreme Court opened the floodgates so to speak.  While not walking hand in hand with the intersection of mass media and politics, one can still surmise how decisions that don't appear to affect the relationship between media and politics can certainly have a ripple effect that changes the way the game is played. The more money that is allowed to be donated to a campaign means the more money available to spend on political advertising.  The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission may have more of a relationship to mass media and politics than appears at first glance.