Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

These individuals have earned money on the backs of the 27 million people, we should be protecting Main Street, not Wall Street. The Federal Election Commission should reserve the right to limit and close the checkbooks of the people that believe they can buy anything they wish. In the film Citizens of Koch, republican nominee hopeful Roemer for the 2012 election, said, “Listen to me America, you are unimportant. They do not care about you because you do not bring a check.” The agenda of the

definitively boosts individual candidates in the polls and allows donors to remain unnoticed. The court case Buckley v. Valeo (1976) resolved the question: “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?” (Buckley v. Valeo). This question first came into play following the infamous Watergate scandal. Congress wanted to end corruption

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

This disillusionment sentiment experienced by American society towards its wealth biased government is substantiated as many members are wealthy or has direct ties to wealth, perpetuating the trend of income inequality through policymaking. The legislative branch of the government, or the branch that is directly involved in policymaking and lawmaking is populated by various members of massive wealth that represents many sectors of the economy that had a hand in the financial collapse of 2007 and

2012 election (politico.com).

entangled in elections. Unfortunately, the United States continues to grant large corporations the ability to donate to campaigns, leading to a corrupt campaign system. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s can donate an unlimited amount of money to endorse 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

In addition, if people lose faith in the election process, our democracy’s integrity can be harmed. The Supreme Court ruled the fact that wealthy corporations had the financial means to support candidates did not mean that people would lose faith in the election process. In the Court’s view, financial support is but a part of the election process and no evidence supports the idea that candidates bend to contributors’ pressure. However, as this law sets deeper in our jurisprudence and Super PACs

financing of presidential election, which was considered a great step forward because taking public funds requires the candidate to limit their spending on the federal level. There is also the “hard money” in political campaigns, which is strictly regulated by law through the Federal Election Commission. Hard money is the contrast to soft money meaning that it is the contributions made by a person or PAC that gives to a federal campaign or political party for the use in federal elections. But of course with

your own rights & the whole purpose of being born in the United States with them. If I was to wake up one day & decide that I wanted to freely create a protest expressing that I support gay rights or the LGBT community then by all means I should be able to do that without any interference. Freedom of speech is the balance between personal liberty & government authority. Free speech started & began when the settlers came over to the United States from Europe & made the original British colonies (Freedom

controversial Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The background of the case, as taken from the website of the FEC states the following: “The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) prohibits corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to make electioneering communications or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate.” With the advent of this court decision, the Supreme Court of the United states found that Citizens United