judgesonmerit.org

As a result of the recent Supreme Court Citizens United v. FEC, corporations, unions and other entities are now permitted to spend directly from their treasuries to support or oppose candidates in political races. The decision has appalled many who believe the ruling will negatively transform the electoral landscape by allowing a new wave of previously inaccessible money to flow into political campaigns. The Houston Chronicle reports,

Critics, including the high court liberal minority, decried the decision and predicted that the U.S. electoral process will soon be distorted by the injection of millions of dollars in corporate cash that will drown out individual voices and influence outcomes.

It appears these fears are already being realized in a Texas state representative primary race, where old guidelines regulating campaign advertising were scrapped in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. One candidate, the president of a real estate company, has dipped into the company’s coffers to finance a slew of negative attack ads against his opponent. Brandished with the tag, “political advertisement paid for by KDR Development, Corp.,” these ads would have, until recently, violated Texas law.

Much attention has been paid to the results Citizens United will have on legislative races. But what many have neglected to point out is how damaging this ruling could be for the already dismal system of judicial elections. Pennsylvania is one of the states that continues to elect their judges in these hotly contested, hugely expensive affairs. Now, the Supreme Court has all but added fuel to the fire.

The Texas race is just a small example of what is likely to become a massive problem:

In the brave new world of post-Citizens United, multi-million-dollar corporate media blitzes directed against opponents for either personal or political reasons could become the norm.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS