Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently said if she could overrule one Supreme Court decision, it would be Citizens United.

In 2010, the Supreme Court Case ruling in Citizens United v. FEC decided that the Federal Election Commission couldn’t restrict independent political expenditures of corporations, labor unions and other organizations.

This ruling and the current political climate have eroded American democratic ideals. Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, recently harshly criticized the Citizens United decision. Citizens United uncorked corporate and union spending, and since the ruling, more limits have been removed. Allowing undisclosed, nearly unlimited political spending is an injustice to average Americans. Their voices and their votes are drowned out by the big donors.

In a Sept. 28 New Republic interview, Ginsburg said not only does she have no plans to step down from the Supreme Court, but expressed scathing criticism of Citizens United and said that if there is one decision she could overrule, that would be it. Ginsburg joined justices John Paul Stevens, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer in the dissenting opinion.

I strongly agree with Ginsburg’s criticisms. Either the Citizens United decision must be overturned or other solutions must be implemented in order to resolve the unprecedented political spending.

According to Opensecrets.org, since the ruling, donor disclosure has decreased. Non-party outside spending also tripled from the 2008 to the 2012 election cycle and hit a record high of $1 billion. The ramifications of Citizens United are still coming to fruition, and there will certainly be excessive spending for the upcoming 2014 mid-term elections as well as the 2016 Presidential election.

The influence of this Supreme Court decision on election spending and outcomes has not been fully realized but the current spending trends show negative effects. It is easy to see validity in the argument that spending limits violate free speech. But when spending directly equates to influence on politicians, wealthy donors have more influence than average voters and politicians are accountable to their donors. The loud voice of corporations in politics drowns out the majority of constituents and stifles the key component of our democracy: citizen involvement.

There are multiple solutions to the inequity in political spending. As Ginsberg said, Citizens United needs to be overturned. The Supreme Court should move away from explicit textual interpretations of the Constitution when it comes to political spending restrictions and base decisions off of our country’s current needs.

Second, legislative changes can be made in order to reduce influence of political donors. For example, public campaign financing, which can be executed in a multitude of ways, forces politicians to be accountable to average voters rather than donors. This would also make politicians more accessible to voters. This grassroots, close-to-home approach would create a political atmosphere that is more conducive to involvement and would reduce political apathy.

And finally, political accountability can be forced by voter involvement. Citizen groups could back candidates and gather small donations. If voters educated themselves on the issues and got involved these candidates may thrive. But in an era of political apathy, many citizens are unaware of corporate influences on politics and do not understand close political ties with corporations that do not represent their interests.

The lack of grassroots organization and lack of political involvement has aggravated the unraveling of our democracy. If this ruling was overturned, if legislation was proposed to make it possible for candidates to run without big donors and if citizens got more involved and educated themselves on political issues, our democracy would be in much better shape.

Rachel Potter is a senior political science and sociology major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected].

Published on October 7, 2014 at 12:01 am