Citizens United Strong Response Of The United States

Diving in the Citizen’s United Ruling case state that corporations and other independent groups have the right to raise unlimited campaign funds. This campaign fund, representing the corporation's freedom of speech, can be used for and against federal candidates. The ruling of Citizen United permitted groups to make “independent expenditures,” not affiliated with any candidate or party since they were not allowed to spend treasury funds in Federal elections (Citizens United). Corporations and unions can have a certain limited contribution to their political action committees, organizations that raise and spend money for specific candidates, that then contribute to the outcome of federal campaigns. Organizations, social welfare, and trade associations

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

These laws were the perfect way for the state to make sure that the system is stable in the future. Just recently on April 2nd, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down the overall cap on monetary political donations. This is a classic case of the state adopting policies to ensure the stability of the system. Coping the scheme of citizens united the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allows an individual to donate as much money as they please to federal candidates in a two year election cycle. Although federal law bans direct contributions to campaigners by corporations and business, super pacs allow money to get to the politicians without direct contact. But this law still allows wealthy individuals to support the candidates that will represent their needs and wants in the national government. This creates an unfair system aimed at helping the elites because they will have more money to donate therefore will have more of the campaigners attention. Justice Breyer realized the importance of this decision being turned down and was recorded writing “Where enough money calls the tune,” he wrote, “the general public will not be heard.” (New York Times).

‘Citizens United’ overturns Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sentencing that its related clauses go against to the principle of freedom of speech in the constitution. The ruling follows a bitter boardroom dispute in all sides in America, which has profoundly affected the average American citizens, the country at large and other stakeholders. Firstly, it affects American citizens. On the one hand, in the year of Occupy Wall Street, large amount of the public protested this ruling, for that this ruling may lead to the corruption and make normal people lose their political rights gradually. But on the other hand, they are allowed to collect for the election without limitation, which is supported by many young people especially the supporter of the Democratic Party. Secondly, it affects the country at large. Even in America with classical liberalism and neo-conservatism,

‘Citizens United’ overturns Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sentencing that its related clauses go against to the principle of freedom of speech in constitution. The ruling follows a bitter boardroom dispute in all sides in America, which has profoundly affect the average American citizens, the country at large and other stakeholders. Firstly, it affects American citizens. On the one hand, in the year of Occupy Wall Street, large amount of the public protested this ruling, for that this ruling may leads to the corruption and make normal people lose their political rights gradually. But on the other hand, they are allowed to collect for the election without limitation, which is supported by many young people especially the supporter of Democratic Party. Secondly, it affects the country at large. Even in America with classical liberalism and neo-conservatism, there is still

In 2009, Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which led to the controversial Supreme Court case that resulted in the removal of some of the limitations on how corporations can spend money in elections. The Court majority argued that restricting independent political spending is the equivalent of disregarding the right to free speech. However, many Democrats and some Republicans believe that the power and sway of corporations have a corrupting influence on American democracy; even if deals aren’t made, the immense concentration of direct contributions from the wealthiest 1 percent of the population gives them an unusual influence over the political system. It is for this reason that almost every Democrat insists on the reversal of Citizens United. President Obama, in his 2010 State of the Union address, reprimanded the Supreme Court justices for their decision. The court, he stated, "reversed a century of law that..will open the floodgates for special interests...to spend without limit in our elections" (Obama 2010). Democratic lawmakers, activists, and supporters condemned the ruling as a "disaster" and "bad for American democracy" (Kroll 2014). However, are the fears and concerns of Democrats valid and justified? While it is true that there has been an increase in independent political spending following the 2010 decision, it is up for debate whether this is just a systematic increase or one that warrants close scrutiny. I

When President Barack Obama charged on the Supreme Court in 2010 during the State of the Union, he said that the Supreme Court had allowed corporations to spend vast amounts of money in federal elections. To this claim, Justice Alito replied “simply not true”. In a way Justice Alito was right because the case Citizens United did not change the amount of money that corporations can spend in federal elections. The Supreme Court simply modified the timeframe in which corporations could spend their wealth to support political candidates. In simple words, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend money promoting a candidate all the way through the day of the

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a 2010 Supreme Court case concerning the regulation of campaign contributions by corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations. The case is known for its holding that campaign spending by such groups is protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech.

President Garrett and Professor Frank chastised the ruling for its pernicious consequences on American democracy. Professor Frank derisively highlighted the ruling’s establishment of corporate personhood, and President Garrett pondered how the five-justice majority (Roberts; Scalia; Kennedy, opinion author; Thomas; Alito) could possibly have concluded that unrestricted political donations would not inherently precipitate bribery, for which there exists, in the President’s words, a “compelling State interest” to prevent. Ultimately, the general panel consensus was twofold: Citizens United was wrongly decided, and the case should be overturned.

In 2011, two sociologists named Erik Olin Wright and Joel Rogers identified five core American values: freedom, prosperity, efficiency, fairness, and democracy (Wright and Rogers). America’s numerous ideals inevitably cause these values to come into conflict each other. Such conflict characterizes the debate over the implications of modern campaign finance laws in America. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United v. FEC in 2010 undid former restrictions placed on how money can be spent on federal political campaigns. Prior restrictions like the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its amendments in 1974, placed limitations on political donations by Political Action Committees (PACs), political parties, and even individuals. Originally these restrictions were put in place to deter corruption that could undermine the democracy inherent in US values and elections. The Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 revolutionized the scene by declaring that independent expenditures are protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. They further asserted that for all intents and purposes corporations are legally viewed synonymous with people in terms of political spending. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized equality and freedom, but at what cost? Critics, like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, suggest at the cost of democracy, and ultimately corporate interests diminishing freedom in the long run. As a result of this case, more money is now

The 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, created national discord with a new discourse over money’s role in politics; in the 5-4 verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which considered limits on political spending the equivalent of limits on first amendment rights. Corporate lobbyists viewed the decision to allow unlimited political expenditures as a victory for the Constitution, while grassroots organizations foresaw the wealthiest corporations and individuals transforming American democracy into a corporatocracy. Unfortunately, the critics’ predictions materialized and crowded out any benefits to small donors. Because Citizens United allows unlimited, anonymous spending from corporations and wealthy interests, special interest groups exponentially increased electoral expenditures, holding politicians hostage to their wealthy donors’ interests and hijacking American democracy in the process. The corporate takeover of representative politics specifically manifested in negative advertising because campaigners believed in negativity’s efficacy in influencing the electorate (Gordon). Moreover, the allowance of external spending encourages candidates to perceive spending towards mudslinging as less attached, and thus harmful, to the candidate. The effect of Citizens United’s precedent is demonstrated in the

The Citizen united was the decision that fundamentally changed how election campaigns can now be financed in the U.S. The heart of the decision is that unlimited amount of money can be used in favor of the candidates but the money can only go to the interest groups that are independent.

Citizens United's goal is to restore the United States government back to citizens control. Citizens United reveals traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. They do this by making films/documentaries,

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

To begin, according to Kay J. Maxwell, the average citizen should have the same impacts and influences in the government as a corporation does. Today with more than 6 billion dollars spent on the presidential elections, where the money came from is of concern (Berr). Because of the Citizens United v. FEC supreme court case decision, corporations are considered to be people when it comes to political free speech (Mock). Since the court decision concluded that donating money to campaigns is a