Anger over Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Committee

The Supreme Court's ruling on the Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Committee in 2010 probably was the biggest blow to democracy that I've seen in my lifetime. It is only fitting that it has reared its ugly head in the Republican primary, and it gives us a chance to see what power this gives to special interests. Incidentally, this was a ruling that was supported by most of the Republican candidates for President.

The controversial 5-4 decision along predictable political lines allows corporations and unions (which include foreign corporations) to donate unlimited amounts to campaigns with no disclosure requirements. The only restriction is that there can be no coordination with the particular campaign they are supporting. A corporation, according to this ruling, is to be treated as an individual citizen with the same right of free speech.

Newt Gingrich, who supported the Citizens United viewpoint, got a taste of his own medicine in the Iowa primary election, where Mitt Romney's SuperPAC launched negative ads against him. The percentage of persons (surveyed) favoring Gingrich fell from 26% to 13% after just one week. This should certainly show the influence that political action committees have on our democracy.

Why is it that the electorate, which overwhelmingly opposes the special interest lobbyists, seems to have so little power in regard to these issues? Senator Bernie Sanders recently proposed a Saving American Democracy Amendment (to the US Constitution) to try to reverse this ruling. Do you think that calling on our congressional representatives to support the amendment will help, or are we fighting a losing battle … since many of our representatives are already indebted to special interests?

Is it the will of the people or the will of big corporations? If this continues, our Congress will be representatives of the corporations and "We, The People" will not really be represented by our lawmakers as was intended by our Constitution.