According to Foster (1), this clip was meant to tarnish Hillary’s political image and render her unfit for a political position. This action was in violation of the Federal Laws and hence citizens United got an indictment. It was criminal for individuals or corporations to air election material thirty days prior to voting. In 2010, the Supreme Court was in condemnation of the act of Citizen’s United but gave leeway to corporations to unreservedly fund political promotions. This decision insinuates that corporations can engage in election endorsement but they are supposedly pursuing their hidden interests (Foster 1). I disapprove the Citizen United’s decision since it encourages rich corporations to further their ambitions through electoral endorsements, which does not level the competitive platform for potential candidates. Impacts of the Citizens United’s Decision This has led to involvement of corporations in swaying of voters, which is infringing on democracy since the corporations employ vast resources to advance their objectives. The emergence of Political Action Committees (PAC’s) has led to pollution of the political landscape since they are persistent in damaging the names of opposing candidates just to increase their political advantage. Negative Advertisements According to Foster (1), one of the hazards of the Citizen United decision is to enhance outside participation in politics. Foreign firms can now influence elections through donating staggering amounts to the political contenders.
Majority of the justices in the court decision were stating that corporations were representative of a collection of individuals hence are creditable to similar freedoms as an individual. This means they have autonomy to participate in electoral activities (Foster 1). They made a reevaluation of constitutional laws to regulate campaign finances that has led to adversely influencing the elections. It is probable that in the forthcoming years super PAC’s will persist in increasing their funding for their candidates through corporations .the negative advertisements tend to disprove a candidate but rather highlight his policies that will give the electorate substantial information to analyze him. Increased Spending Secondly is the threat of the candidates to administer the interests of the corporations rather than the community (Foster 1). Since the proportions that can be utilized in the campaigns is limitless the corporations can be the invisible force behind significant policies that the candidates propose for implementation. Therefore, the candidates will be under duress to sing to the corporations melodies and further spice it up with a dance routine. This would be injurious to the democratic privileges of the public since their interests will be given second consideration, as the candidates will initially fulfill the corporation’s demands. In addition, these contributions could sway the outcome of voting since money has an ingenious way of manipulating concept or ideas to the financiers bidding. Demoralization of the Corporations Members According to Foster (1), the organizations choice may not accommodate the perception of its members and this is likely to instigate conflict within the firm. The corporation entails of employees, stakeholders and their clients who advocate for their services. The corporation can propose a candidate that is in contradiction with the public and this can alter the community’s perception of the company (Foster 1). This will be to the