Legislative process

Legislative process

Is the legislative process effective?

When answering this question, consider the role that special interest groups and corporations play in the legislative process. Specifically, looking at Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission should private corporations be able to influence elections and therefore help shape the legislature and what influence should corporations have over elections? How does this case illustrate the separation of power and the efficacy of checks and balances?

Legislative Process

The legislative process is diversely effective, depending on the Jurisdictional application and circumstance. The Supreme Court Case of “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” offers guidance on special interest groups and corporations’ role in the legislative process. Predominantly, the Supreme Court decision illustrated the application of The First Amendment by organizations in Federal elections. The dissenting opinion of Judge Ruth Bader, in this case, points out that a fair legislative process must be guided by integrity in federal and state elections
(“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,” n.d.) .
The main aspect of contention, in this case, is to what extent the organizations take part in the election and political process. If corporations use their money to fund political advertisements, that could create diverse inequality and compromise on democracy (“Remember when? Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Decided January 21, 2010) — Subscript law,” 2018). It necessitates a need for transparency on the same issue. Conversely, by the thoughtfulness of the separation of powers, the Supreme Court reversed the previous decision to allow organizations’ reasonable involvement in political functions. Deducing a decision that fidelity of the First Amendment is paramount and it goes hand with an effective legislation process.

To ensure the value of checks and balances, the Supreme Court decreed the need to disclose political donors and partnerships in the circumstance. In support of non-profitable organizations, the majority indicated that citizens should be satisfied by having the freedom to donate for their party of choice. Assessment of voters’ manifesto means that they are at liberty to push and campaign for what they believe to be right and just. In this respect, it is essential to note that the Supreme Court’s separation of powers does not cater for the interests of foreign organizations in elections. This means the legislative process is strictly left on the hands of citizens (Robert A, 2016, p. 4).

References
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (n.d.). Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Remember when? Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Decided January 21, 2010) — Subscript law. (2018, May 9). Subscript Law. https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/citizens-united-2010
Robert A, S. (2016). Citizens United V Federal Election Commission case (US). Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/law-mpeccol/e548.013.548