It takes a lot to win a presidential election in the United States. Candidates need a platform, supporters and a staff — but most of all they need money. The 2010 Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission removed any and all limits on contributions from businesses to Political Action Committees. These super PACs permit corporations to indirectly fund political campaigns limitlessly, they threaten to drown out the voices of the people and allow companies to manipulate politicians and influence elections. The ruling hurts many of the quality candidates who don’t have enough cash to keep up with other candidates, and the citizens of the U.S. deserve an election that isn’t impacted by finances.

Presidential candidate, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s financial moderation may be hurting him in the polls. Huntsman has suffered several attacks from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the GOP frontrunner, and he finished a distant third in the New Hampshire primary. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s PAC, Winning Our Future, just received $5 million to finance negative advertising against Romney in South Carolina. Huntsman isn’t in the same type of financial position to further his own campaign.

The upcoming presidential election will be the first impacted by the Citizens United ruling, and its effects are already visible. It’s no coincidence that Romney was the biggest spender. His Restore Our Future super PAC spent more than $700,000 on attack ads. Romney’s attacks on Gingrich, who finished fourth in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire Primary, significantly affected the former frontrunner’s campaign. Gingrich also spent more than $700,000 less than Romney. It seems that the winning candidate won’t necessarily have the most appeal or best ideas, but he will have the largest bankroll. A significant portion of these funds come from support of the gas, tobacco and casino industries.

It’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court has allowed such pervasive corporate influence to affect our political system. The court's decision was based on the theory of “corporate personhood,” which dictates that corporations are individual entities deserving of representation. The Citizens United decision was made to protect political speech, but it has effectively diminished it. The electoral process has become decentralized from the needs of the voter and is focused on corporate interest. Corporate personhood drowns out the average voter and amplifies the voice of a single organization, giving it the powers that a single person alone does not have.

The Citizens United decision changed the culture of campaigning. Before 2010, a provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law prohibited private companies from sponsoring advertisements advocating for a specific issue. However, the new Supreme Court decision overturned this aspect of the Act. The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act, a 2010 effort of the congressional Democrats that never passed, would have created greater transparency in campaign funding and expenditures. Such a measure would not fix the problem, but would be a way to further provide Americans with the information they need to make an informed voting decision.

The responsible course of action is to repeal corporate personhood and abolish super PACs. Monetary gifts may translate to an unfair advantage in the polls. Campaigns shouldn’t be bidding wars. Elections should reflect the democratic ideals upon which the United States was founded. The American public deserves an election free from the bias of the pocketbook.