Abstract
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American democracy and has led to diminished confidence in the electoral process. Many states have responded to the Citizens United decision by implementing public financing options for state elections. This Note proposes that Ohio should create a public financing option for state elections to combat corruption stemming from corporate influence on elections.
Recommended Citation
Taylor Hagen,
Corporations "PAC" a Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence in Elections and a Proposal for Public Campaign Financing in Ohio,
69 Clev. St. L. Rev.
485
(2021)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol69/iss2/9
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Election Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons