Well, the way I see it, since 2008, politicians can be turned into corporate puppets. Of course, I don't believe that is the case, since obviously no one like the Koch brothers endorsed Obama. I wrote a mock blog post about it that has the fact that I found on the subject, and my opinion. "This post is to be my first - it is to let the people know about the thing that I consider to be the "biggest" issue that has happened, of which many of my peers have no clue about.
The first on my list is the Supreme Court and it's ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This was a case that came before them in 2010. The business Citizens United filed a suit against the Federal Election Commission for acting against their publicizing the release of "Hillary: The Movie". Citizens United claimed that the FEC was infringing their freedom of speech rights. In essence, Citizens United believed that their free speech rights were being violated when the FEC blocked them from using corporate money on advertising their movie. (The lawsuit happened in 2008, during the election campaign. It did not come to the Supreme Court's attention until 2010.)
The Supreme Court, our highest court, the one that is to dispense justice to disputes between states, between states and federal institutions and determine whether federal laws are constitutional - it's been given the task of solving the dispute between the Federal Election Commission and Citizens United. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. This ruling has, what many might think of, made Corporations people. This of course is not in the literal sense, but it is more of symbolic... and more importantly, in law. With this ruling, corporation spending limits in political campaign adds was abolished. Depending on how you view things, this could be a good or bad thing. It would be good if you believe that the FEC was infringing the rights of Citizens United. A counter point to that would be that Montana, the state where the case originated, had a law stating that the corporations couldn't do this.
"federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S. C. §441b. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election, §434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2), which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President … means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election … is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes."
In English, this law states that corporations can not take money from their general capital, or their regular cash fund, to use on political adds within 30 days of an election. So, the Supreme Court ruled that this law is unconstitutional. This is their power, of course. But was it the correct decision?
Changing this law means that corporations can use their nearly limitless coffers to pay for either smear or booster campaigns for whatever candidate they choose. Essentially, they can purchase elections. This is, of course, the bad point of view. Which is based on the facts and the truth.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, must learn the truth. We must learn to filter our minds of the propaganda and focus on the truth. Learn, be educated, and do what is best for you and your country."
I wrote this a couple of years ago, so bear with me if you don't find the writing to nice.
As for the the people who say individual votes don't count... that's true to an extent. In theory your vote really does count. Electoral votes are gained by a candidate getting move votes from the voting in the state. Each state has varying populations, therefore, each state has a different number of electoral votes. As for why you vote doesn't matter, it doesn't really matter in red states or blue states. Mainly, just swing states, where this is only a slim difference between which party has the majority of the people with them. For example, I live in Kentucky. And I didn't bother voting, because I knew that Kentucky is a very red state, and it would be red whether I voted or not. (Not surprisingly to me, Kentucky was one of the first states given to Romney by MSNBC on election night.)