Uncertain Justice: The Colbert Report

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.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation and is responsible for being the impartial judge in interpreting the law of the land. One of the biggest struggles the Court can face is having to rule for what is constitutional over what is morally right. This is not referring to Plessy v. Ferguson where we only know it was morally wrong in hindsight. This is referring to a case where the judges knew fully well that what had happened was a tragedy and an injustice yet, they had to rule against what any normal human being would vote for. Imagine the difficulty in that. Now, imagine the public backlash when it was announced. The conflict of morality vs. constitutionality in the Court in the case of DeShaney v Winnebago County is apparent

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

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.

Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 distinguished the Bethel School District v. Fraser ruling. The case dealt with the regulations of campaign advertising produced by an organization. In the early months of 2008, The Citizens Untied Corporation released a documentary about why Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The corporation’s plan was to make the documentary accessible 30 days before the primary election. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act however prohibits corporations from producing advertisements that advocates for or against a candidate 60 days prior to an election or 30 days prior to a primary election. The question at hand in this case was whether the BCRA violated the organization’s First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the BCRA’s restrictions. The high court decided that the law limited what people could say and when they would say it in regards to the election. It also ruled that the Federal Law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution. The court however, upheld certain requirements for public disclosure by means of advertisements. The court distinguished the Bethel School District v. Fraser ruling when they “upheld a narrow class of speech that operates to the disadvantage of certain persons” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S.

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.

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).

In the 2012 Presidential election, the majority of outside spending was a result of the Citizens United decision1. The unique increase of money translated into an increase in television ads, radio ads, and direct mailings. Unfortunately, the large increase in political rhetoric caused a move to political extremes rivaling those at the end of the Civil War2. It explains that micro-targeting of advertising allowed corporations and Super PACS to create echo chambers, where only points of view in agreement with the audience were expressed. Polarization was an issue before the Citizens United ruling, but the unique increase in rhetoric caused the “worst polarization in 120 years.

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law” This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when involved in election cycles. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s could donate unlimited amount of money to support candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to the company.

Tushnet’s book helps teach why the Supreme Court has ruled the way it has. In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges legalized homosexual marriage, this would not have been possible 30 years ago. Tushnet describes this in his book, the Supreme Court doesn’t always go with whether the subject is constitutional or not, public opinion, and whoever is president at the time, determines mostly how the court rules on most decisions. In many Supreme Court cases, cases pass or fail due to a 5-4 vote, this further helps Tushnet’s case that The Court Justices hold their own personal political agendas.

The Supreme Court's decisions under John Marshall's leadership at the time, did not extend federal power too much because his opinions were needed to resolve and unite the states. The amount of power he had at the time was appropriate for the situation. The Supreme Court has an important role in out American government though, to lay the final decision in few peoples hands is giving them way to much power. The Supreme Court has a significant amount of influence on many important legal issues for our country, why do we give that much authority to individuals who are appointed for life without being elected?

The Supreme Court has looked over many cases, all making life changes and some making no difference in the world. The case Texas vs. Johnson uproared so many political arguments, amendment arguments, and even country disputes. This case was and is still so important because it brought of the basis of the government's beliefs against an individual. The government and many military personales found it offensive, but the key to liberty is free

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

Citizens United is a conservative non-profit group that sought to challenge Michael Moore’s movie Ferienheit 9/11 through section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act. Citizens United called into question Moore’s movie citing the motive behind the film was to advocate the defeat of President Bush and that it was

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