Citizen's United Ruling Case Study

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.

Citizens United is an organization that wants to restore citizen control of the United States government. They want to restore the America back to a free nation that has a limited government. The way that they achieve this is to produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films. In 2009, Citizen United sued the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United stated that it was illegal to limit a corporation from spending its treasury money to support or attack candidates in presidential elections. This led to outside groups such as the Super PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money. Super PACs are an independent political action committee. They could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, and other individuals.

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.

Under the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC the supreme court ruled that corporations as an entity were considered people giving them the right to spend money to spread their options and beliefs. This case has been openly questioned in the media, among many members of the country and the government alike. It is still in effect today and the opinion has not changed by the supreme court. With corporations being considered people it brings into question what or who else could be considered person under US law. One example of a group that could benefit from being considered persons are animals. Animals are mistreated everyday and if they had the rights of people then this could be different. Every argument or discussion has two sides, in this case the two sides are that animals should be considered persons and the other is that they should not be considered persons. Both sides have their merits and their faults.

The main constitutional question within the case of Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 regarded whether sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act infringed upon the free speech clause granted to the people through the First Amendment. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) instituted in 2002 controlled how political campaigns could be financed. The act criminalized ads produced by corporations that expressly advocate for or against candidates within sixty days of general elections and thirty days of primary elections. A claim was made that in preventing funding of political campaigning by certain corporations, the government was essentially preventing them from demonstrating free political speech and breaching

In the case of US v Windsor, Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007, where a same-sex marriage were legal and was recognized by New York state law. When in 2009, Thea died. Spyer left her estate to her spouse, and because their marriage was not recognized by federal law. The government imposed a tax of $363,000. If their marriage was recognized, the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would have been imposed. On November 9, 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, states that, for the purposes of federal law, the words “marriage” and “spouse” refer to legal

The president of the United States is our commander and chief of the U.S. Armed Force. As we know the president leads the country in line with his job within the executive branch of government to enforce the laws created, tabled, and passed by congress. The pressure is enormous and being that it may look easy, it is not. Every president had to endure a great deal of work while in office. In order to be focus under pressure can be of great use during times of conflict (war). Presidential powers in dealing with domestic and foreign affairs through its co-existing of war will show how and why war is constitutional.

Citizens United is a wonderful beacon of free speech. Free speech shouldn't be barred from organizations. However the idea of “invisible millionaires”

The statute specifies that to a person “who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties.” is guilty of interference with a flight 49 U.S.C. § 46504. The government must prove the accused both intimidated the flight crew and interfered with the crew’s performance of their duties. Ms. Greene neither intimidated nor interfered with the flight crew.

In the ruling for Citizens United v. FECC, the Supreme Court stated that the 1st Amendment does apply to Corporations and Unions and thus the government is not able to limit their political speech. In this case content based speech restriction, this fell into strict scrutiny under the compelling government interest test and the framework of the 1st Amendment outweighs the government’s interest in restricting the freedom of speech processed by corporations and unions.

I would also say that I agree with Steven's conclusion. After reading Lisa McElroy's article on Citizens United v. FEC in plain English she really gave me a better view on why the supreme court would rule on the government not keeping corporations from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections(McElroy,2010). After the election we just had with Clinton and Trump I felt Trump started off with more money than Clinton and I always felt money powers everything and truly helped him out. The man had tons of hotels, business's and a bunch of other things vs what Clinton had.

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is based around the first amendment right of free speech and who is allowed to have the right thereof. Facts about the case brief are that Citizens United was the creator of a documentary film that lasted 90 minutes long and required viewers to pay to watch. The film started in theaters and then moved to DVD, after that had finished Citizens United then created a few more short ads for television that requested voters not to vote for Hillary Clinton. The concern arises when a group is able to create a full movie length campaign negative towards one candidate.

As previously stated in the second paragraph, Citizens United claimed certain amendments unconstitutional because, in the long run they were trying to show what they thought about certain candidates. In the book Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz discuss one of the most powerful institutions, Citizens United. In Tribe and Matz’s book, Stephen Colbert from Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, focuses on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case and found that “...the corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they choose when advocating the election or defeat of political candidates, so long as they do not coordinate their advertising with the candidate's' campaign" (Tribe and Matz 88). After Colbert did some research, he aired clips showing how anonymous millionaires were privately funding specific secretive super PACs, even though super PACs are required by law to disclose their donors but nonprofit groups do not have to. Corporations have the same right as citizens do with voting, it is anonymous. In the book, “Colbert explained how to manipulate disclosure rules...And to prove that ‘shady, out of state group[s] whose intentions are not clear’ can influence elections…”(Tribe and Matz 89). So, the fact is that whether or not the money is from a nonprofit group, the majority of the money that is spent in elections is disclosed. But, at the same time, because they remain anonymous it tests the First Amendment due to freedom of speech. Huge corporations and groups have a ridiculous amount of money that they can put their money towards ads and propaganda with hidden messages, negative comments, or anything in their beliefs. Not knowing where specific money comes from or what the intentions really are damages our political

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