Campaign Finance Reform and the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision

Summary

Delve into the intricate world of campaign finance reform and the pivotal Citizens United Supreme Court decision with HipHughes. This educational journey covers the historical backdrop of money in politics, tracing back to the 19th century. Discover how various laws attempted to regulate the influence of money, leading to a significant landmark case: Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. This ruling reshaped the political landscape by allowing for greater corporate financial involvement in elections, sparking debates about free speech versus corruption. Engage with the arguments on both sides, and understand how this decision gave rise to super PACs, altering campaign financing profoundly.

Highlights

• Campaign finance issues date back to Andrew Jackson's era. 🕰️
• The Tillman Act of 1907 banned direct corporate contributions in politics. 🚫
• PACs and Super PACs became new tools for corporate election influence. 🎩
• Citizens United decision based on free speech, stirred major controversy. ⚖️
• Super PACs heavily influenced 2012 elections with overwhelming financial contributions. 💸

Key Takeaways

• Money in politics is a long-standing issue, dating back to the 19th century. 💰
• The 1907 Tillman Act was the first federal legislation to ban corporate contributions to candidates. 🏛️
• Citizens United v. FEC transformed campaign finance by allowing unlimited corporate spending. 🔄
• Super PACs emerged as a powerful force in elections, raising massive funds with little regulation. 🤑
• The debate continues between viewing money as free speech versus a corrupting influence. ⚖️

Overview

In this educational adventure with HipHughes, explore the journey of campaign finance reform through the ages. Beginning with the spoil system during Andrew Jackson's time, we traverse through key legislation like the 1907 Tillman Act and the controversial Citizens United ruling. Discover how these legislative efforts aimed to curb corruption yet opened new avenues for financial influence.

The Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 marked a turning point, standing on the disputed grounds of free speech. By enabling corporations to spend unlimited funds on campaigns, the ruling intensified debates about the nature of political influence and the integrity of democratic elections. The discussions pivot around whether such financial autonomy constitutes free speech or undermines democracy.

The emergence of super PACs post-Citizens United amplified the role of money in politics. With the ability to amass vast sums, often from few donors, these entities significantly tilted the scales in elections, notably in 2012. This development intensified discourse on the balance between financial power and equal political representation, challenging the core of democratic principles.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:00: Introduction to Campaign Finance Reform In this chapter, Mr. Hughes introduces the topic of campaign finance reform, highlighting its importance and relevance in courses such as AP Government, US History, and more generally, in the 'class of life'. The focus is set on exploring the history of campaign finance reform leading up to the pivotal Citizens United v. FEC 2010 case.
• 01:00 - 03:00: Historical Context of Money in Politics The chapter titled 'Historical Context of Money in Politics' discusses the role of money in political arenas, focusing on whether it acts as a corrupting influence. It explores the concept of quid pro quo, where monetary contributions may compel politicians to act in favor of those who provide the funds, potentially against broader public interests. This raises concerns about corruption and the degree to which financial contributions may dictate political actions.
• 03:00 - 06:00: Legislation and Acts The chapter titled 'Legislation and Acts' discusses issues surrounding free speech, particularly in the context of democratic rights and financial influence. It highlights the history of campaign finance, touching on historical practices such as during Andrew Jackson's era, including the spoil system where government employees were expected to financially contribute to their employers.
• 06:00 - 09:00: Rise of Political Action Committees (PACs) The chapter traces the origins and evolution of political campaign financing in the United States. It begins by highlighting the historical involvement of money in political campaigns, dating back to Andrew Jackson's era in the 1830s. The National Bank, a corporate entity, contributed $40,000 to Jackson's opponent, underscoring the longstanding influence of financial interests in politics. Furthermore, the chapter discusses the Pendleton Act of 1883, which removed government civil employees from the equation by establishing a civil service system. This act is noted for having paved the way for corporate influence in political financing by reducing direct government involvement in political activities.
• 09:00 - 12:00: McCain-Feingold Act and its Challenges The chapter discusses the historical context and challenges faced by campaign finance legislation in the United States, focusing on the McCain-Feingold Act. It references the 'Pennsylvania idea' from the late 1800s, where Senators, particularly Republicans like William McKinley, would solicit funds directly from corporations in exchange for favorable legislation. This practice highlighted the need for reform and was countered by figures like Teddy Roosevelt, who recognized the necessity of regulating such financial influences to ensure a fair political process.
• 12:00 - 18:00: Citizens United vs. FEC Case The chapter discusses the historical context and significance of the Citizens United vs. FEC case, starting with the disfavor of unchecked corporate influence in politics after President William McKinley's assassination. This event led to Teddy Roosevelt's presidency, where he championed fair competition in capitalism and viewed financial contributions as a corrupting influence in political campaigns. As a result, Roosevelt sponsored the 1907 Tillman Act, marking the first federal legislation to address campaign finance reform and regulate the influence of money on political campaigns.
• 18:00 - 21:00: Impact and Analysis of Citizens United Decision The chapter discusses the impact and analysis of the Citizens United decision, focusing on campaign finance laws. It explains that earlier laws, such as the Tillman Act of 1907, banned corporations from directly contributing to political candidates. This was further expanded by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which extended the ban to unions, likened to 'labor corporations' by some on the right. These acts collectively shaped the landscape of campaign finance.
• 21:00 - 25:00: Discussion on Corporations as Citizens In this chapter, the discussion revolves around the concept of corporations as citizens, with a particular focus on campaign finance reform. The conversation begins with a comparison to 'whack-a-mole,' illustrating how efforts to reform campaign finance often encounter new challenges. The origin and development of political action committees (PACs) are highlighted, noting that after the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, unions initiated PACs, followed by corporations joining in. This metaphorically frames corporations' actions and influence in political finance and campaigns.
• 25:00 - 27:00: Conclusion and Viewer Engagement This chapter discusses the development and influence of political entities funded by corporations and their employees to affect election outcomes. It highlights the prominence of political action committees (PACs) from the 1950s to the 1970s. The chapter then introduces the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which was enacted in response to the growing power of PACs.

Campaign Finance Reform and the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 [Music] hey guys welcome to hip Hughes history my name is Mr Hughes and we're about to cook up a little bit of learning for you specifically on campaign Finance reform specifically taking a look at the history of it all the way up to Citizens United versus the FEC 2010 which you need to know that's right you need to know it if you're an AP government polyi class a US history class or in the class of life we don't care why you're here
• 00:30 - 01:00 here cray cray included stick around because uh I can hear it right now ding dong learn [Music] here all right guys this is really great stuff uh taking a look at the idea of money in politics and whether it's a corrupting influence whether it's something that always leads to a quidd proquo which basically means that money is corrupting politicians and getting them to do things that the people giving them money want them to do or if it's a
• 01:00 - 01:30 issue of free speech if it's an issue that I have money and in a democracy I should be able to do what I want with my money so let's first take a look like I said at the history of campaign [Music] Finance all right let's go back in time are you ready um I've done this before and I've gone back to Andrew Jackson talked about the spoil system and how employees of the government were expected to pay their employees ERS
• 01:30 - 02:00 which were these politicians like Andrew Jackson in order to run campaigns and that was way back in 1830 3231 was matched by the National Bank a corporation in a sense giving $40,000 to Andrew Jackson's opponent in order to defeat him so money's been in politics a very very long time um the Pendleton Act of 1883 at least got the government civil employees out of the picture by creating a civil service system and really that uh I think gave the reference to corporations for quite a
• 02:00 - 02:30 while they even had a name for it it was called the Pennsylvania idea and in the late 19 1800s Senators mainly Republican Senators and Republicans that were aspiring to be president William McKinley being one of them would raise money by basically going directly to corporations and saying you give me the money and I'll pass favorable legislation or stop negative legislation so you can even you know make more money um and Teddy Roosevelt was another Republican who really kind of saw
• 02:30 - 03:00 disfavor with this and after mil William McKinley's assassination we see that Teddy Roosevelt ascends to the presidency and makes it his mission to regulate and to really make a Fair competition system in capitalism and he believes that money is a negative influencing campaigns so Teddy Roosevelt sponsors and signs the 1907 Tillman act you get in your vocab you love it don't you the Tillman Act of 1907 is the First Federal legislation that is going to to have some type of impact on campaign
• 03:00 - 03:30 finance and what it basically did what it was ban corporations from giving money directly to candidates um that idea was expanded um in 1947 with the Taft Harley act and this took unions which many people on the right see as basically labor corporations and it banned them from giving money directly to candidates so if you can get those two laws the Tillman Act of 1907 and the Taft Harley Act of 1947 you got it going
• 03:30 - 04:00 on and now we [Music] continue all right here we go you ever play whack-a-mole whack-a-mole and that's what sometimes campaign Finance reform feels like as soon as you whack one of those moles another mole pops up that mole would be political action committees and after the 1947 Taft Harley act unions really first started political action committees and then corporations jumped on the bandwagon these were um B basically Corporation
• 04:00 - 04:30 entities that um developed separate from the corporation but funded by the corporation and by employees of the corporation in order to influence the outcome of Elections and uh political action committees uh held a lot of sway in the 1950s the 1960s all the way up into the 1970s and really Beyond but it was in the 1970s that we get our next piece of legislation that's really responding to political action committees and this is the 1971 federal election campaign Act F which sounds
• 04:30 - 05:00 kind of dirty doesn't it in 1971 the Federal Election Commission Act was passed it was later expanded in 1974 with a series of amendments and basically what it did was it tried to uh limit the influence of these political action committees which many at the time really saw as an extension of Corporations and unions um there was disclosure laws which basically said that you couldn't do this in secret if you were going to give money to a candidate or a polit political action committee you needed your name on it um it limited hard money the amount of
• 05:00 - 05:30 money that one individual could give directly to one of these political action committees so they wouldn't have too much undue influence and it also created um the skeleton or the aspects of what would we considered I guess publicly financed election so continuing with the whack-a-mole the pack start figuring out that rather than really giving money directly to candidates or giving it in soft money formats which were going to State political parties who would then
• 05:30 - 06:00 spend that on behalf of candidates they really start going into the media game and creating commercials um trying to influence the outcome that way um and in some Minds um skirting the law still influencing the elections and what the people on the left would say was that this is going to give opportunity for quidd pro quo the idea that I spend money and win you the election and then you pass me the favorable legislation you're ready for new new vocab I'm ready for new vocab McCain
• 06:00 - 06:30 fold you sometimes you'll hear it called McCain fold sometimes you hear it called the bipartisan um campaign Reform Act or the BC and what this did was it sought to expand disclosure on soft money and it changed some of the limits on hard money the piece of the legislation we really want to pay attention to is section 203 or electioneering campaigning which basically is going to try to limit the influence that packs have by rolling out
• 06:30 - 07:00 ads right near elections so what it basically did was it banned corporations and um political action committies from running ads um 30 days before an election 60 days before a primary um so that's McCain fold and we're going to challenge that in citizens united but not before mentioning the whack-a-mole game one more time you always have whack-a-mole and in that instance you had these groups uh 527s pop up and 527s are kind of packed by another another name they Define them M El in a way
• 07:00 - 07:30 which way they weren't classified as packs um and they started running issue orientated ads so as long as they didn't see a candidate's name they could be a 527 and they're in a sense supposed to be nonpartisan but in a sense they might not be and uh you have them on the left you have them on the right the biggest one that comes to mind would be swift boo Veterans for truth influencing the outcome of the 2004 election by running tons and tons of ads against John krey and his experience in Vietnam but like I said the they're running up against Bush
• 07:30 - 08:00 on the left in the same way um so now let's get to the meaty part of what we need to do the vegetarian said meaty part how do you like that citizens [Music] united all right we did it baby I knew we'd get there Citizens United versus the FEC and the FEC is the enforcement agency the Federal Election Commission um borne out of the Amendments of the 1971 federal election campaign act so um citizens united is nonprofit group they
• 08:00 - 08:30 are um a conservative nonprofit group a republican-run fold or attempted to use McCain fold by bringing Michael Moore's movie um Fahrenheit 911 to the FEC and they complained that Michael Moore's movie and the ads for that movie would violate the um electioneering campaign part of 203 and that he shouldn't be able to do that um the FEC actually ruled in favor of Michael Moore saying
• 08:30 - 09:00 that his movie wasn't meant to influence the election but it was a commercial Enterprise it wasn't just a really a political Enterprise but it had artistic value and he was doing it for other reasons so now the tables are going to turn because citizens united is going to basically do what they thought Michael Moore was doing they're going to create a production company a film company and they're going to start making the movies and in 2008 they're going to release a movie and this movie is called Hillary theie movie and it's really aimed
• 09:00 - 09:30 directly at Hillary Clinton who's running against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary and it's going to take her down like a clown but in their mind this is a commercial Enterprise they've created a movie with money they've raised they want to show the movie the movie was going to be on like Direct TV and they want to run ads for it and somebody goes to the FC and says hey man they can't do this this is violating McCain fold because they're not doing it because they wanted to make a good movie they're doing it because they want to influence the outcome of an
• 09:30 - 10:00 election and that is illegal and the Fe rules against Citizens United and they're not allowed to show the movie they're not allowed to run the commercials either so now they go to the Supreme Court they go up through the appeals court process and they lose and that's why it's Citizens United versus the FEC let's look at the outcome 54 baby you know if it's 54 it's probably going to be a pretty big
• 10:00 - 10:30 decision so Kennedy wrote the decision and basically it sides with citizens united not just in the narrow instance and sometimes the court did that actually the court did this first they ruled on it twice and the first time they basically confined the ruling to citizens united in a sense just overriding the fec's decision but then for reasons that are very political inside the court um John Roberts got the court to hear the case again and at the end of 201 10 they released the same
• 10:30 - 11:00 five to four balance but this time they've expanded their decision and not just aimed it at the FEC but aimed it at the very heart of McCain fold and basically what they did was they said that you know packs can spend money the way that they want to they why they want to is their freedom of speech money is freedom of speech so we're going to talk about super Pacs in a second and and kind of the result of this or the effect of this ruling but if you're on the left generally liberals or people that are progressives and even Republicans like
• 11:00 - 11:30 Teddy Roosevelt believe that money is a quidd proquo that money is corruption and that this type of big money I'll give you a quick statistic in a second and you'll you you'll find out how much money we're talking about um but that this money is influencing the system in a bad way it's corrupting it's drowning out individual citizens ability to influence the election and the other side on the right or the Republican side is a freedom of speech argument that it's not the government job to get in
• 11:30 - 12:00 and try to equalize the sides that money is freedom of speech so let's take a look at the outcome of these elections and uh 2012 so now it's kind of like Open Season um there's something called super packs and these super packs are um huge packs that raise huge amounts of money and spend that money pretty freely um there's a few rules that are still in place uh super Pacs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates so in a
• 12:00 - 12:30 sense they're supposed to be separated from the candidates but in many instances on both sides you have Democrats and Republicans that are in the political party system running these super packs so many people point to the obvious conflict of interest they have that they know the candidates and that they're probably coordinating even though they say they're not coordinating but the super Pacs are pretty huge about $100 million they raised in 2012 so the top 100 individuals who contributed to
• 12:30 - 13:00 Super packs made up 3.7% of all the contributors but that 3.7% those 100 people gave 80% of that 100 million that super Pacs raised so the argument of course is is that these very few very wealthy people are influencing elections and there's got to be quid proquo stuff going on they're going to not spend that much money and not get anything out of it I think one of the other arguments is
• 13:00 - 13:30 whether or not corporations are citizens people on the right or Republicans conservatives generally argue that these are factions of individuals Corporation sounds like a very kind of you know capitalistic and mean word but what they boil it down to is these are human beings that have banded together and have self-interest you know interest for that group and they're trying to influence the outcome of an election that's pluralism all groups have the opportunity to do this nonprofit groups and sporting teams and the Boy Scouts
• 13:30 - 14:00 and Lobby groups and corporations the other side says hogwash poppycock that is just baloney that they're not citizens how can corporations be citizens and be entitled to the same rights of citizens when they don't have the same responsibilities of citizens they can't get drafted you can't draft a corporation be like ATT you're going to Vietnam right and they can't vote so they're not real citizens this is all baloney now you have to decide where you stand but you do have to examine both
• 14:00 - 14:30 [Music] [Applause] sides I'm done I'm done stick of forking me I'm done we hope that you got the main ideas of freedom of speech and kind of money is corruption and um whether or not corporations are citizens and have the same rights as everybody else or whether corporations or something else I don't know if corporations can get drafted or vote but I'm sure there's good arguments on both sides of that fence wherever you stand you need to tell me below by commenting and you can battle it out down there there and I'll moderate how about that for you click
• 14:30 - 15:00 the description because we have other edu channels that you best be going subscribing to and you best be subscribing to hip hwes because I ask nicely and now I don't like to shout and I don't like to pout I don't even like the sourkraut but you know what hipu is hi out [Music]