The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search feed instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content
| Grewal Law, PLLC

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll shows that there is overwhelming, bipartisan support on at least one issue: the Supreme Court’s decision allowing foreign and domestic corporations, unions, and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general funds to influence elections is absolutely horrible. Finally, we all get along on one thing: campaign finance was better without this decision. I guess I’m not the only one who sees the dangers of this decision on our democracy, which I wrote about back in January.

The now infamous Citizens United case is hated equally by Democrats, Independents and Republicans, with all three groups having at least 76% disapproval for the decision.

In a time when political partisanship seems to put a wrench in everything, our legislators need to pay special attention to what average American citizens feel about corporate money influence elections instead of voters influencing elections.

One Comment

  1. Gravatar for Bret Hanna
    Bret Hanna

    This is a terrible decision and I think former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor highlighted one of the biggest problems - what does the decision mean for judicial elections? When I lived in Michigan as an adult and practiced law in Grand Rapids ('91 - '94), the concept of electing judges struck me as odd; candidates have to raise money to run campaigns and get elected but can they really set knowledge of contributions when making decisions that may impact contributors? In Utah, judges are appointed and then stand for retention elections but there is no campaigning, etc. This process makes more sense to me but in the number of states where judges are elected, the Citizen United case will no doubt skew the process in ways that will most likely be very negative.

Comments are closed.