Citizens United V. FEC

McCutcheon v. FEC was a landmark case in American campaign finance law which challenged that it is unconstitutional to limit an individual’s donations to as many parties as they want because in doing so their freedom of speech is being violated. The plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon who is part of the Jefferson County Republic Party Steering Committee as well as the Reagan Foundation. The Republican National Committee was also a plaintiff. This case is a constitutional challenge to aggregate limits on contributions to federal candidates and to political committees such as PACs and parties. These aggregate limits restrict the total amount of money an individual may contribute to all candidates or all political committees during an election cycle. The plaintiff did not challenge the individual contribution limits on particular political entities but challenged the additional cap BCRA places on the total an individual can place on all political contributions. BCRA stands for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which addressed two main issues: “prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits . . . and the proliferation of issue advocacy ads” (which is defined as “electioneering communication” and was over turned in Citizens United v. FEC) (Campaign Finance Law Quick Reference for Reporters). So what does this mean exactly?

The issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush’s response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that money is

In this Supreme Court 5-4 decision, the Court states that the First Amendment protects corporate and union funding of independent political broadcasts in elections. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” Or as the Court says, the

The demons of a misinterpreted judicial review have corrupted the legislature, the courts, and our political process. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional. The landmark Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision ruled that political spending is a form of free speech and corporations have license to contribute exorbitant amounts to politicians. Citizens United ensures denies the voices of citizens as representatives are beholden to outside interests rather than their constituency. I, Justice John B. Gibson, hold that the power of judicial review is too widely interpreted and, to keep government officials accountable, must be vested in the masses to rediscover some twinge of our once budding representative democracy.

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.

In the Marbury versus Madison case, Chief Judge John Marshall distinguishes three questions that are used in the judgement of the case. He debates whether the applicant has a right to the commission he demands; whether, if he has a right and that right has been violated, the laws of his country afford him a

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

Declaring the ban of corporate and union independent expenditures unconstitutional the Supreme Court indeed ruled correctly, enforcing the idea that factions and liberty are essential to the functioning of a republican government and upholding the people’s right to free speech guaranteed to them by the first amendment. In ruling the ban on independent expenditures of unions and corporations unconstitutional the Supreme Court reiterated the long standing belief of the framers and the public that factions are inevitable and necessary to the success of a republican government. In a republican government the power resides in the elected officials chosen by the public whom they represent. It is common knowledge that the public’s opinions will

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

In a court case in 2010, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the ability to spend virtually limitless money on an election was given under first amendment protection. With this ruling, Political Action Committees, or super PACs, have become tremendously influential when it comes to elections. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs cannot directly donate any raised money directly to this political candidate. While these parties can not directly donate this raised money, and must be independent of the candidate they support or oppose, there is a huge debate of the unclear line involved with who can be a part of these super PACs. For example, Obama had his Republican challenger and former aides of his office supporting his super PAC.

In 2012, in an effort to win reelection as President of the United States, Barack Obama raised $1072.6 million dollars. $78.8 million of it was raised by the Priorities USA Action Super PAC. (Ashkenas, Ericson, Parlapiano, and Willis, 2012) PACs or Political Action Committees are groups formed in order to raise and spend money for a political candidate. PACs began in 1944 and had strict guidelines set by the Federal Election Committee in which an individual could only donate $2,500 to a PAC and companies were not allowed to donate money. This changed in 2010 with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case which indirectly led to the formation of Super PACs which allowed for unlimited spending and unlimited donations from individuals or corporations to political

The Federal Court’s Ruling on Liberty

In 1976 the Supreme Court came to two important conclusions in Buckley v. Valeo, it set a precedence that the limitation on independent campaign expenditures by both corporations and candidates violated the first amendment, because money is a form of free

I believe the Supreme Courts Citizen’s United Decision is unethical. The decision undermines citizens right to form a full opinion on political candidates, disregarding what is good for society. The theory of communitarianism is prevalent throughout this case acknowledging social justice, democracy, and liberty. After the Supreme Courts decision in 2011, citizens began to worry how the decision would affect the democratic election process. The book states, “Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions analyzed in light of their potential to impact society”(ME,14). By using communitarianism, the case’s evaluation of the Supreme Courts decision and its impact is easier to comprehend.

government on all sides of the Constitution that is bounded by law, giving the local and state