Home » The Next Citizens United Could Affect Campaign Spending In The States

The Next Citizens United Could Affect Campaign Spending In The States

At the federal level only a small group 646 individuals bumped up against that aggregate limit during the 2012 election cycle, according to The Center for Responsive Politics Open Secrets blog . But spending limits in a handful of states are lower, meaning that if they fall money could come flowing in. While McCutcheon only affects the federal limit, experts are watching it closely and many on both sides believe the state limits either wont survive or would become very vulnerable if the federal cap is nullified. If the federal limit falls, I think the states are likely to fall, too, says Lawrence Norton, co-chairman of the political law practice at Venable and a former general counsel of the FEC. If the Supreme Court rules against the limits, it will likely do so in a way that affects those state caps, he says. In a February blog post, Norton identified roughly 10 states with state-level spending limits. The Center for Competitive Politics, which filed a brief on behalf of McCutcheon puts the number of states with limits even higher at 13. Still, they argue, the majority of states have no cap and are doing fine. And, besides, Citizens United opened the floodgates for unlimited independent corporate political spending, so removing the aggregate limit for individuals acts as a counterbalance, they and others argue. But fans of the limit couldnt disagree more. As bad as Citizens United was, I think this would be much worse, says Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, the Maryland executive director of Common Cause, a nonprofit active on campaign-finance issues. Its true that money already makes its way into politics as outside political spending.

Taking the Lead: Obligations of the United States as Global Hegemon

The Cold War began in 1945 because these superpowers had conflicting ideologies and national interests (capitalism vs. socialism, for example) that influenced their perceptions of the international system and thus, their actions. When the Cold War ended in 1989, an unprecedented world order was established with United States as the global leader, or hegemon. A hegemon is defined as a dominant state that has a preponderance of power that often establishes and enforces the rules and norms in the international system. The United States consciously took on this position of leadership in the post-Cold War order. In our contemporary international system, the U.S. remains the central power, with the European Union and China lagging behind. As hegemon, the United States has more military, economic, technological, diplomatic, political, and geographical advantages than other countries. G. John Ikenberry , Michael Mastanduno, and William C. Wohlforth demonstrate in their article “Unipolarity, State Behavior, and Systemic Consequences” that other states rival the U.S.