The recent Supreme Court decision allowing large corporations to run Essay

The recent Supreme courtroom decision allowing queen-size corporations to crusade their own policy-making ads - Essay ExampleHowever, just before the life-or-death 2010 midterm congressional option period, this law was partly upended by the unify States Supreme Court. In the case of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 votes, ruled that corporations and unions were constitutionally allowed to dangle as much money as they can on campaign ads supporting particular candidates (Francia 16). However, the corporations were all the same prohibited from donating money directly to campaigns. Ever since its impression, the courts decision to allow large corporations run their own ads has received mixed reactions among politicians, scholars, lawyers and the rest of the citizens. Whereas some people involve been in respect of the ruling, others induce strongly contested the decision, terming it a threat to democracy (Carney 2). Those against the ruling argue that the decision favors republicans, threatens democracy and allows for election interference by the corporations, as they can now run their own ads in support of a specific candidate (Kosterlitz 5). However, this is just fear of unknown. For as much as the ruling might get hold of negative implications on the federal elections, these arguments are not true and, as far as I am concerned, the decision impart not progress to drastic effects on the politics of the United States of America, especially the elections. Therefore, to arrive at the conclusion that the ruling will not threaten the democracy of this domain but actually help it, this paper will make several observations. First, the argument that the courts ruling greatly favors republicans is not true because, as opposed to the previous years, nowadays most large corporations hedge their bets and give donations to both parties. In fact, they give donations to whoever is in power, or possibly going to be ( Carney 2). This explains why the Obama campaigns were able to do so well. All the funds used in the campaign did not only come from individuals, a huge portion came from large corporation, that is, their PACs. Therefore, the ruling will not favor republicans, but it will favor the most promising or prominent party. Secondly, the claim that large corporations will greatly dominate or interfere with the politics of the country is perplexing (Carney 2). For quite a considerable time even before the ruling, large corporations, such as New York Times, The Washington Post, USA directly and The Wall Street Journal, among others, have had the ability to further their political needs. Under the political action committees (PACs), they have been given the permission to support and donate to political parties or candidates. Moreover, most unions or corporate lobbyist PACs have been running ads about various issues or in support of various candidates. Therefore, it a fact that this ruling wil l not change the politics or the election of the country, but it will just guide the middleman, PACs (Carney 2). Finally, the ruling is good for vitiated businesses because it could promote free market competition. Previously, before the courts ruling, small businesses could not compete effectively with the large corporations because they had no PACs and lacked money to give to powerful lobbyists, who had PACs, to act on their behalf. Large corporations, such as Wal-Mart, had great influence on political issues of the country and, thus, received favors from the political divine, leaving the small firms to deteriorate further and go out of business. However, with the ruling, the small firms