By Justin Lalputan, Staff Writer

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently approved unlimited corporate funding of presidential campaigns by way of a case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This has come as quite a shock to many citizens who feel that this will give corporations too much power over presidential elections. I also feel that there are simply too many downsides to this ruling for it to properly work in our democratic system, however there are some that disagree with me.

Before the recent Supreme Court decision, there were limitations on funding and all donations had to be monitored and documented. There was very little that people could do to get around the corporate funding regulations. Sometimes presidents would be questioned about exactly where they got their funds from. Now that there is unlimited funding, some key problems arise.

First and foremost, I believe that this unlimited spending gives corporations too much power. Imagine what it would be like if presidential candidates had the ability to simply appeal to one or two companies to get all the campaign finances that they needed. First, they wouldn’t have to pander to the needs of interest groups anymore. In fact, interest groups would be hit hard. Their donations are pathetic in the face of the amount of money that corporations could provide. Presidential candidates spend millions on their campaigns. Corporations could easily provide a billion dollars if they needed to.

Think about the leverage that this could grant corporations. If a president agreed to do certain favors for corporations in return for campaign contributions, we could have more corruption in our political system than we would know what to do with. That’s not all. What if a corporation picked someone to run for president, and completely backed them financially? We could have a figurehead for president and he or she would be a puppet for the corporation that backed him or her.

It’s not just American corporations either; imagine what would happen if multinational corporations gained the same leverage that I mentioned previously. It would be ridiculous to even imagine an America where non-Americans even have the slightest input in the presidential election.

Sadly, it gets even worse; the term “corporate persons” has arisen as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision. A “corporate person” essentially means that a corporation has some of the same rights as a person. Murray Hill Inc. is currently attempting to run for congress in Maryland’s 8th district.

I honestly can’t understand how people would even think that something like this is a good move. America has always been “for the people,” and when we start granting rights to things like corporations, which we didn’t even want to give to other human beings not even 300 years ago, I think that something is going wrong. The founding fathers did not intend for big businesses to have as much influence as the recent Supreme Court decisions grants them, and I am positive that they didn’t want corporations to be able to run for political office, like what is happening in Maryland’s 8th district.

Thankfully, there is one limitation on the impact that this Supreme Court decision has on elections, which is the intelligence of the American people. If the American people can see through propaganda and learn the truth, there is a possibility that the unlimited funding by corporations could have no effect. However, that doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Court has made a horrid mistake. I believe that the Supreme Court needs to rethink its decision. They need to think about what the future of America will be like when Americans aren’t the only ones that participate in political elections.

Justin Lalputan is an undeclared major.