Money can buy many things, and as of the ruling on April 2, money can buy a little bit more than before.

On April 2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of eliminating donation caps for political parties.

This seems to be a continuation of Citizens United’s motives from 2010, when limits for campaign spending by corporations and unions were also eliminated.

Justifications can be made in their defense. If people can burn the American flag and protest funerals of fallen soldiers, then they certainly have a right to donate their own money.

Politics should be about the people and the concerns they have for the betterment of their own lives. A limitless amount of money allowed for funding elections gives the opportunity for more than morals and common public interest to influence politics.

With all the talk of corruption and fixing a country which is in massive debt, this Supreme Court decision seems to be in disagreement.

This court case, McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission, was seemingly a Republican vs. Democrat battle. All five justices who voted yes for removing the cap were appointed by Republican presidents, while all who had opposed were selected by Democrats.

The collision of views has gone down almost the same in the previous five cases involving the increase of funds in the last eight years. The only difference was in the 2006 case, Randall vs. Sorrell, when the vote was 6-3 to overturn Vermont’s limits on campaign contributors and spending.

With Supreme Court justice jobs considerably one of the most secure positions you can get, the change in views and justices in favor of such actions will not change for some time.

What will come of this new court decision? Will bribery be legal and protected by the Constitution?

They shouldn’t have taken the cap off entirely, but instead raised the limit to a higher amount. Campaigns are expensive and the costs rise, so increasing the allowed amount makes sense, but the amount shouldn’t be limitless.

The justices have all the power in determining all things legal, as long as they find those things in accordance with the Constitution.

Ethically and politically, fund-raising for campaigns has changed, and just in time for elections later this year. It was claimed that both sides were looked at in this decision, but were they really?

This decision will impact future elections, including future appointments of justices. There will be increased cases of bribery, and the courts will lack the ability to see if corruption has increased or decreased.

Young people — especially college students — will suffer the most repercussions of this decision, because they are the least likely group to have a disposable income.

Only the next few generations will be able to determine the real implications of this decision and then they will have to reevaluate whether this decision was really constitutional.

Hunter Erickson is a staff writer for the Dakota Student. He can be reached at [email protected]