The Way to End Citizens United’s Electoral Corporate Finance Laws

The decision of the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010 led to controversial debate and unexpected repercussions on the US democracy especially elections. The case began in 2008 where Citizens United wanted permission to air an hour long advert attacking then primaries presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) found the case wanting as Citizens United did not say who funded their political adverts as per the federal laws. Citizens United took the case to the federal court which upheld FEC ruling.

However, in 2010, two years after the primaries were over and Barack Obama had been chosen the president, the Supreme Court overturned FEC’s decision. The effects were shocking to many, and it led to active efforts by political organizations to counter the effects of the ruling as others attempted to look for a legal way to overturn it. As a result, numerous political action committees (PACs) were started, and in 2015 End Citizens United joined the fight. It derives its name and mission directly from the ruling, to overturn Citizens United.

The ruling allowed large, anonymous and unlimited corporate campaign donations, as well as increased personal attack through television and radio adverts during campaigns. It further removed the aspect of responsibility as donors had nothing to be accountable for especially the negative and annoying ads.

The ruling also handed Republicans an upper hand because they have a good rapport with the economic elites who have a good stake in most corporations in the US. They include the Koch brothers and the Walton family who have half the rights at Wal-Mart.

End Citizens United has two primary goals. Develop and execute mechanisms aimed at overturning Citizens United, and support political candidates who demonstrated commitment towards campaign finance laws improvement. Most of the Republicans do not support such endeavors, leading to End United Citizens to be more inclined to Democratic candidates.

Through small-donor grassroots fundraising, mostly on digital means, End Citizens United is able to account for its campaign systems. The funding technique helps to pull individuals together into a coalition with people towards fighting for a common goal. As people engage at the local level, they feed the countrywide system, which in turn comes up with ways to accelerate local activism.

Formed by a team of experienced political experts who are savvy, End Citizens United leadership is well capable of achieving its mission. The president and executive officer, Tiffany Muller have been two-time chief of staff for different Congress member, while executive vice president Matt Burges is an expert in advocacy and campaigns having worked at numerous senatorial and gubernatorial elections.

The Keys to Success for End Citizens United

End Citizens United is a political action committee that has made their mark on the United States government as a force seeking to make campaign finance reform a reality. End Citizens United is being run by Tiffany Muller, the President of the PAC, and she has been helping to funnel in the passion of angered voters who are disturbed by the election of Donald Trump to the White House. Let’s take a look at their history and what End Citizens United is doing in order to make a difference in the congressional elections that 2018 will bring.

End Citizens United, as you can tell from their name, is focused on introducing to Washington D.C. a constitutional amendment that will challenge the Supreme Court ruling in regards to the conservative group, Citizens United. You’d have to go back to 2008 to see when Citizens United started to chip away at voting rights in the United States. Bopp had initially made an argument to Federal judges that Citizens United should be allowed to upload unlabeled propaganda videos during the Democratic events. When this failed, Bopp returned to the Supreme Court in order to argue that corporate donations are just an extension of a company’s ‘freedom of speech’. Bopp would inexplicably convince the Supreme Court of this argument and thus open the doors to dark money in the United States government.

Washington D.C. has always been beholden to special interests and corporate lobbyists but the 2010 ruling completely opened the doors and the floodgates. Political legislators began to receive massive donations from millionaire and billionaire donors and soon every politician seemed to have their own special allegiances, thus subverting the voice of the American people. The election of Donald Trump, as odd as it was, can pretty much be traced back to the floodgates of special interests coming to Washington D.C.

In order for End Citizens United to be successful in their mission they need to work hand in hand with everyday Americans in order to render out some real change in the government. That is why End Citizens United is relying on a grassroots campaign to prepare for the 2018 elections. The average donor to End Citizens United is giving just $12 and there is a donation cap limit to prevent special interests from hijacking the goal of the political action committee.

If End Citizens United wants to be successful they’ll need to help several progressive politicians score seats during the upcoming elections. End Citizens United recently backed Democrat Doug Jones in his run against the embattled Roy Moore for the Alabama State Senate seat. Doug Jones has made campaign finance reform a consistent part of his approach to politics over the past several years.

Learn More:

End Citizens United

James Bopp is a lawyer based out of Terre Haute Indiana. James was hired by Citizens United to represent them in court in January of 2008. Citizens United created a film called Hillary: The Movie. The organization wanted to air their movie via on-demands during the republican primaries. They were denied the right due to the fact that the three federal judge panel based out of Washington DC felt the movie was nothing more than a ninety minute political ad. Citizens United did not provide proof of who funded the creation of the movie and because of this their show was not allowed to be shown on on-demand. The judges did not rule that they had the same freedom of speech rights that individual persons do in accordance to the first amendment.

Two years later the Supreme Court ended up reversing the ruling in Citizens United vs FEC. It was ruled that corporations can be considered individuals and are then protected by the first amendment. James Bopp is an advocate for helping non-profit groups and at chipping away at finance regulations for political campaigns in the United States.

End Citizens United focuses on removing large corporation monetary donations from political campaigns. End Citizens United accepts donations from their network of donors and the average donation is about $12. During the first quarter of 2017 more than 100,000 people donated towards End Citizens United. They were able to raise more than four million dollars and are hopeful that through networking they will be able to raise thirty five million dollars ahead of the 2018 midterm elections for congress. This is a ambitious increase in monetary donations considering the PAC raised twenty five million dollars for the 2016 elections. The 2016 elections were the first round of elections that End Citizens United was in operation for. End Citizens United feels that people as a whole are not happy with how politics are being handled and want to remove big corporate donations that may influence elections. By making donations people are able to help candidates that may otherwise not have a chance of a fair election have their voices heard.

Visit for more information about the organization.

Charles Koch Wants To See Changes In Government

Charles Koch has spent his life building the business his father started. It was originally a middle sized oil business. Koch then expanded into everything from pollution and process control technologies and equipment and fertilizers to polymers and fibers and forest and consumer products. The company manufactures items such as Lycra, Stainmaster, Quilted Norther and the Dixie Cup. He has grown the company to 2000 times the size it was. Because of this and because Koch Industries pulls in a revenue of about 90 billion dollars per year, Charles Koch is worth nearly 42 billion dollars.

Koch grew up in Wichita, Kansas. He studied at MIT and received several degrees in engineering. He moved home and started to take over his father’s business. Over the years, he also started dipping his toe into the philanthropic world. Koch is known to give to many politically aligned organizations, that share similar principles to him, and also cultural and artistic organizations, mainly due to the trust his wife formed. His goal is to push the idea of a free market economy so that everyone has access to the same opportunities without regulations getting in their way.

In order to push this idea further, Charles Koch wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post. In the article he first addressed how Senator Bernie Sanders has been misrepresenting Koch’s stance on a variety of issues. Koch said he would much rather try and find common ground and he believes that he and Sanders share common ground on 2 issues.

The first issue that Charles Koch believes he shares with Senator Sanders is the criminal justice system. Koch believes that the criminal justice system is broken and targets certain groups of people rather than looking at all individuals equally. He does not believe that non-violent offenders should be in prison. The first problem is that is costs the tax payer money and the second problem is that as soon as an ex-convict is released there are many regulations that prevent him from gaining opportunities to move forward in life. These regulations include the loss of right to vote, get a meaningful job, have a credit card or loan.

Koch also agrees with Sanders on the issue of the current government system not working, especially with regards to big business. However, Charles Koch believes that there should be less government.

Read the full article here.