Citizens Unite v FEC and its Repercussions Essay

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

The First Amendment has been one of the most controversial issues surrounding the Constitutions since its ratification in 1787. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Many people disagree on the extent of power the First Amendment actually has on the right to free speech. One of the most controversial issues surrounding the First Amendment is how much influence a company can have over elections and

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

What is Citizens United? While it is also a type of political action committee, it became part of a Supreme Court case in 2010, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United is a political action committee, a type of organization that donates contributions to campaign for or against candidates in the United States. Citizens United is a problem in United States politics because it allows giant corporations and millionaires to donate large sums of money to get their candidate elected. The Supreme Court made a decision about political spending that has ever since affected the business of politics in the United States (Levy).

Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is undemocratic.

The Citizens United v. FEC decision was extremely significant for American politics because it transformed how corporations are viewed by the law and gave corporations the right to spend an unlimited amount of money on candidate elections, which in turn gives corporations the ability to shift and influence

FEC) limiting campaign spending on the basis that PACs (generated by corporations) where in fact individuals in their own right. As such, all individuals/citizens of the US have a right to spend their money as they see fit, whether that is making a political speech by funding certain campaigns. Therefore, forbidding corporate spending on elections is a clear limitation on freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some argue that not limiting the amount of money into politics will inevitably lead to corruption. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not built to protect man against himself but against, the government he created. This topic also brings to light the dilemma over what we, (the people and government), consider a citizen. Webster’s dictionary defines determines that the legal definition of a citizen is “1: a native or naturalized individual who owes allegiance to a government (as of a state or nation) and is entitled to the enjoyment of governmental protection and to the exercise of civil rights” and “2: a resident of a town or state who is also a U.S. native or was naturalized in the U.S.” Based on what a corporation is in that definition; a corporation does appear to meet all the requirements: it is considered an entity in itself that can indeed be based in the US, but does it pledge an alliance to our government? Can a corporation

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

-In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for

Citizens United impacted the Political Institutions by allowing unions, corporations, and associations to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. Saying that they won't coordinate their efforts with a candidate. Citizens United helped unleash unprecedented amounts of outside spending in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Before Citizens United was created, outside groups legally limited they ways they could use the money to influence elections. Citizens United teamed up with a lower court case and they cleared the way for direct corporate spending and created the super PACs, which accepts unlimited contributions from different corporations or individuals in making expenditures. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations

The case “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” was to regulate the spendings of candidates campaign, but it failed to succeed. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Bentley, 2017) The case was ruled in favor of big business donating private funds to campaigns. They argued because the first amendment protects the right to speak of many corporations and unions, whether or not people see them as human, therefore the are aloud to donate money to a candidate. (Bentley, 2017) In the academic journal written by Bentley, he States the Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued, " although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis." This meaning the government cannot enforce spending limits on private donors due to the government not being able to identify the big businesses as "corrupted". Since the government cannot label an organization as corrupt or unjust, therefore the donor can continue to assist the candidate. The main problem is the United States of America seems to avoid this. There is a clear problem with Citizens United being able to continue donating money to candidates without giving them so much power. This can be stopped through a constitutional amendment to strip away the corporations of their rights. (Bentley, 2017) By doing this, there will be a very successful campaign for future candidates due to there being an equal amount of money being distributed to them

Furthermore, they must disclose that the candidate of which the advertising is about does not condone the message ("Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission."). The Supreme Court struck down the law, thus essentially allowing unlimited funding of candidates from corporations. The unrestricted access that campaigns have when funding grants legal impairment of those who are unable to donate money as a corporation would, thus making the votes of the people matter less.

election process created for fair and efficient elections. These laws, which limit political spending, serves to limit speech by restricting the average citizen’s ability to both receive and deliver political messages. Laws that restrict spending on political campaigns not only dampen freedoms of speech but but have a counter affect on our democratic society.

Throughout the book, the writers describe the roles of the billionaires, corporations, politicians, and the media in the “money-and-media election process”. I believe the arguments that they made and the pieces evidence they use to support theirs claims are valid. I also believe that these problems are as serious as the authors describe within the key points they explain. There are many points made by these writers regarding these roles that these groups listed previously hold. One point made by Nichols and McChesney was that corporations hold the power to cast votes on issues with the money and resources that they hold. This is a product of the court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which gave powers to the corporations as if they were people. If the corporations vote with their money and resources, normal citizens’ votes seem to be obsolete, a common perception of American. This may be one reason why voter turnout is so low in this nation, people feel like they

After the Citizen United vs. the FEC Supreme Court ruling, in favor of Citizens United, political campaigns have the ability to raise much greater funds through organizations called super PACs. According to Michael Beckel a political reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, “Officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees”— and unofficially dubbed “super PACs”—these political action committees are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations” (Beckel 655). On top of the ability to raise unlimited funds, the individuals donating are not required to disclose their names. This could lead to some serious corruption. Super PACs can run as much advertisement either for or against a political candidate, seriously swaying the way citizen’s vote and view a candidate. In fact “super PACs are allowed to use 100 percent of the funds they raise to influence elections” (Beckel 656). No one expected this Supreme Court ruling to have an impact so fast. As stated in an article published by The Nation, “The total number of TV ads for House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in 2010 was 2,870,000. This was a 250 percent increase over the number of TV ads