Freedom Of Speech And The First Amendment

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.

11. According to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which of the following is not a reason to allow corporations the right to spend money and advertise for political candidates?

The dissent focuses on the idea that corporations are not people, and therefore the right of free speech should not apply to them. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court’s ruling threatened “to undermine the integrity of

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.

In stark contrast to the majority, Justice John Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that “[t]he conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.”Invalid source specified. Stevens observed that, “[a]although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.”Invalid source specified.

This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a

There were several landmark supreme court cases and laws before Citizens United that attempted to regulate campaign contributions. Political corruption can easily be caused by increased amounts of funds going to a candidate. A candidate will be more likely to benefit corporate interests because that will allow them to get more money later to help in reelection efforts. This becomes problematic because average citizens do not have the ability to donate large sums of money to a candidate. This makes the speech of large corporations worth far more than the average citizen. This can have a drastic impact on the marketplace of ideas. John Stuart Mills in his book, On Liberty, creates the marketplace of ideas. This marketplace consists of all speech being able to have equal weight and face

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed for corporations and capitalist enterprises to be treated as individuals during an election period. This ruling allows corporations to spend or give an unlimited amount of money in contributions to their party or candidate of choice in any given election. With the loss of corporate financial regulations, our entire political system runs the risk of being corrupted by corporations whose sole objective is to satisfy its share-holders. This ruling affects all Americans their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." President Barack Obama had this to say about the ruling:

“Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor” (2). The majority supported their decision by stating that corporation donations to a candidate election is a method of free speech, which means it must be protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, those disagreeing with this stance viewed corporations as businesses, rather than people, and believed that having no regulations and limits on contributions would cause the voices of individuals with average means to be drowned out by the money donated by major corporations. The protection given to corporations by the First Amendment basically meant that corporations were seen as people, rather than as businesses. Additionally, the majority also ruled that the disclosure requirements set by the McCain-Feingold Act were constitutional for the movie because there is “governmental interest in providing the electorate with information about election-related spending resources” (3). Despite all the changes made regarding financial contributions towards candidates, the ban on direct financial donations and aids to candidates from corporations was upheld by the Court.

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).

Through the course of history the Supreme Court has had to oversee many monumental cases. One case in particular that I believe has had a paramount effect on policy, corporations and elections is that of Citizens United v. FEC. This case brings to light many disputed issues two of them being Campaign Financing and Freedom of Speech. Through the course of this essay we will delve into what occurred in this case, why that decision was made, and how this decision has affect our Freedoms today.

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

No one knows how much of that money came from corporate treasures. The courts five to four decision said that is it OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The courts decision also stated that the first amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

Since the era of Watergate, limits to monetary contributions to campaigns have yielded a debate regarding the degradation of First Amendment rights and the fight against corrupt politics. Many of the most significant Supreme Court cases of the twenty first century such as, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, have dealt with the controversial topic of campaign finance reform and citizens’ most basic freedoms (Federal Election Commission 2015). Landmark cases regarding campaign finance reform and implications on First Amendment rights have become a controversial issue in American politics that will continue to have a vast impact on monetary