Prepare your eyes and ears for the most obnoxious visual and aural assault in human history. With money able to flow more freely, political campaign ads are going to be nearly ubiquitous for months leading up to the next presidential elections.
And major corporations support it all.
It's still illegal for corporations and unions to directly donate to political campaigns, but last year's Citizens United Supreme Court ruling gave big organizations a route for their money.
Instead, they can give any amount to a "super PAC," a private group dedicated to electing a candidate. The PAC can then work as an auxiliary campaign, separate from the candidate they intend to elect. After another court decision, they can even level attack ads against opponents.
Because this was illegal in 2008, the 2012 election is bound to raise some of the biggest sums in any presidential election.
The only flaw seemed to be that PACs must disclose their funding, but even that isn't a problem for corporations and unions. They can donate to "issue groups," who then donate to PACs. Issue groups do not have to disclose their fundraising.
Although not supposed to hold ties to the candidate's campaign, the lines are often very blurry. Make Us Great Again, Rick Perry's super PAC, was cofounded by one of Perry's former chiefs of staff.
Candidates are also allowed to fundraise for the super PAC that supports them, making the PAC almost even more powerful than the actual campaign for office.
All of this combined makes for a revolutionary election year in 2012. Before, laws mitigated the influence of corporations and big unions in an effort to force candidates to appeal to the people of the nation.
Now, corporations can dump money into electing a particular candidate. Presidential hopefuls can make promises to companies or unions in exchange for some sort of return.
There's nothing to stop President Obama from making a deal with the sex toy industry to give government subsidies for dildo manufacture in exchange for a sizable donation to his super PAC.
On top of being bad for America as a whole, it's wildly unfair to everyone associated with the corporation or the union. Not all of the stockholders in a particular corporation are going to agree with donating to a particular campaign. People from almost all walks of life take part in stock trading, and their opinion is not considered when giving out millions to a candidate.
The same thing goes for members of a union. Millions pay their dues to ensure the union can ensure their safety, their job security, and fair business practices. Surely, not all of them expect their dues to go toward a massive contribution for a candidate they don't agree with.
What the Citizens United decision has created works against a real democracy. It creates the climate for a government that is all but run by the powerful and the rich, rather than the people of this nation.
Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people. We are walking ever more toward a nation of the dollar, by the dollar, for the dollar.
