Supreme Court Case: Citizens United Vs. FEC

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

Why do these authors say restrictions on students’ speech rights are a “step in the wrong direction”?

The 1970s began a more active era of campaign finance reform. The passing of the Revenue Act of 1971 allows citizens to contribute one dollar to a presidential candidate’s campaign fund by checking a box on their federal income tax returns. Along with the Revenue Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act was also passed in 1971. This law institutes disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees of donations more than $100. This law also sets a spending limit of $50,000

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 right of free speech granted to all citizens in the first amendment, the necessity of funding expensive political campaigns, and the fact that small donations make a candidate responsive to the needs of their constituents, all make any restrictions on campaign financing unneeded and onerous. Congress should strike down any bills attempting to reform this essential part of the U.S. election process. Any further restrictions on donations to political campaigns will prove detrimental to the United States functioning system of elections by limiting individuals’ freedom of speech, making our candidate’s campaigns underfunded and unresponsive to the needs of the American people.

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.

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

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

Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?

Facts of the Case- In March 2010, there came about multiple lawsuits that were merged into one case shortly after Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius). With the passing of this act it required U.S. citizen who did not already have health care through Medicaid, Medicare, corporate, or any government-sponsored source to get health care. Citizens who did not have any of the mentioned healthcare sources would be forced into buying into the federally funded healthcare. If they did not buy into the healthcare, there would be a strict penalty

The Supreme Court also sited in that same ruling that, “In a free society by our Constitution, it is not the government, but the people-individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees-who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign” (Keena 6). While it may be a violation of freedom of speech to limit television ads, many of today’s candidates have made a mockery of the existing legislature regarding campaign financing. Ex-president Bill Clinton bent the rules and laws more than possibly any elected official ever, and certainly farther than anyone since Richard Nixon. Thad Cochran, a veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, stated, “Clinton used his own party and had it operated out of the campaign office, which was the White House, to coordinate expenditures by the Democratic Party and his election campaign in an unlimited amount, using soft money to pay for the ads, with his own chief-of-staff making the decisions about the kind of advertising, and Clinton himself was involved in writing some of the ads that were actually run by the Democratic Party using soft money” (Williams 10). No elected official had ever gone so far as to run soft money ads out of his own office, let alone rewrite the ads himself. It is cases such as this one that are prime examples for why there is such a need for new laws to govern campaign financing.

     Rather than government providing millions of dollars for the campaign and putting harsh restricts on individual donations, I believe that the limits should not be put on the American people but on the candidates themselves. Spending on the campaign has gotten out of control within the last decade. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spend on mobile campaigns, advertisements, and media exposure. This funding could easily go towards other areas of society, benefiting the very people that the candidates wish to govern. Rather than directing negative attention, I believe that candidates should reach out to the public to gain support. Campaigning for presidency should not be about winning or who raises the most money. Presidency should be about protecting and caring for the American people. The conduct of campaigns should be monitored in order to limit spending and to prevent negative advertising towards opposite candidates.

Candidates such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are surrounded by money. This will allow for easy unlimited funding from the citizens who agree with their views and will benefit from them winning. Presidents would obviously reward these organizations once elected in one way or another. This will allow wealthy individuals to make a much more significant impact on elections. While old PACs had a cap on how much could be donated by individuals, while prohibiting organizations and companies from donating, these new “isolates” super PACs can receive unlimited donations. A major company may decide to spend a few million dollars to support a specific candidate if it could return profit on the investment from taxation policies the winning candidate puts in place. This puts a large importance on money in the election, and less on debates and views. This is shown in the current election, with two of the candidates being some of the biggest financial influencers in the United States. Donald Trump is one of the faces of the business world and has huge influences in the business world. Hillary Clinton was a former first lady and has many large backings. This election has two of the biggest iconic faces in this country, most likely due to this new

The changes should include a monetary limit to what they can spend and the names of all who donate to them. There should be a cap on the amount of money candidates should be able to use for campaigning because the money portion of the election knocks most third parties out of the race right away. They become outshone by rival parties/candidates who have a myriad more to spend (“Is it becoming”). With a limit, we would see more third parties shine through in elections instead of just Democrats and Republicans. Also, it doesn’t knock just 3rd parties out of the race, it can knock out less wealthy candidates. There could be a poor or middle class individual out there who has the potential to patch up all the flaws in our nation, but not enough people will be aware of them because more wealthy candidates have far surpassed them in the monetary aspects. The current system we hold favors the wealthy over the average citizen. The rich donate to those who favor the rich, leaving the bottom 90% unrepresented (“Is it becoming.”). If a cap was to be set for presidential campaigns, I’d recommend it be at or around $500,000,000. That would be around half of what is being raised currently for presidential campaigns. It’s still a large sum of money to look at, but just one 30 second national television add alone costs an average of $250,000 (Wagner). Multiply hundreds of those plus all the other expenses listed above; it can add up to a

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.