The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision to allow political action committees ”“ groups affiliated with candidates ”“ to take in unlimited contributions as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the candidate is making for an expensive election season. The decision also opens the door for the independently wealthy to contribute as much of their money as they’d like to PACs ”“ and in turn, candidates.

Last week, the Associated Press reported that billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, along with his wife, Miriam, gave $10 million to a political action committee backing Newt Gingrich in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination.

Adelson’s two $5 million contributions are among the largest known political donations in U.S. history, according to campaign finance experts.

This kind of spending should cause major concern for Americans, because elections should not be won by those who “speak” the loudest ”“ spend the most money ”“ they should be decided by the people.

Television advertisements unfortunately have major influence over voters, and it seems in the Republican presidential nominee contests so far, those who have spent more, gained more votes.

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission said, “The Court has ”¦ rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not ”˜natural persons.’”

But they should be treated differently, and until the time of this decision, they were. Corporations and individuals have been limited in their maximum allowable donations to candidates to allow for a more equal playing field.

People like Gingrich, who seem to be bank rolled by one man, may feel indebted to that person in the future ”“ as other candidates feel they are to unions or groups that have supported their campaigns ”“ which could lead to decisions being made in those groups’ or individuals’ interests, rather than the interest of the people.

The Citizens United decision is bringing the country further from free speech, not closer, by allowing a small, select group of people to influence candidates and policy decisions for the entire country.

In an Associated Press article, Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign finance watchdog group Democracy 21, said, “The bottom line is that it creates that potential for one person to have far more influence than any one person should have.”

He added that when a candidate is beholden to a single donor for so much money, “it opens the door to corruption and influence peddling.” 

We agree.

The Supreme Court has overturned a century-old restriction that sought to make the campaign financing process more fair and transparent. The floodgates have now been opened to allow for unprecedented and unregulated spending on political campaigns.

This decision will hurt the political system and may increase corruption. And it will certainly allow those who are financially able, and politically motivated, to contribute millions to PACs to influence policymakers more than they already have.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by City Editor Robyn Burnham on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.