Assignment task:
I would say that while corporations may have a very large influence on campaigns, it is not enough to where they should not be able to throw their money into media coverage and ads. While they may try to influence voters, the voters are still the ones determining who becomes the next President of the United States. According to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, "The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation." This means while the money is coming from these big corporations, it is still considered democratic because the people that are apart of these big corporations get one vote like all other U.S Citizens. If these corporations were not allowed to indirectly support these candidates, then that would be undemocratic. Another thing, if it was ruled that the funding of independent political broadcast in elections had to be limited, then it would mostly likely happen under-the-counter by direct monetary support. This happens frequently in the lower levels of the government, so why would it not happen during presidential elections. People with money can attempt to influence other voters. With that being said, money is not speech, but it instead enables speech. The saying "money talks" is very applicable to this topic because the voting system that has been put together in this country, they are limited to a point with what they can do with their money. It would be completely wrong if corporations with a lot of money could directly buy votes.