Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

The ruling does not encourage the majority of citizens, the middle and lower class, to become involved in politics. Once corporations can donate to their heart’s desires, regular citizens will not be the main focus of politicians. Such can be seen in the way congressional members call donors for hours in the Congressional Call Centers. Congressmen and women are not calling the average citizen, but rather they are calling people who can give them a large lump sum of money. During a talk, Senator Chris

developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court

Campaign contributions destroy the marketplace by expelling the views of average citizens in exchange for the views of corporate donors that don’t have the opportunity to have their views scrutinized by the public. Their views are safe from criticism because they are able to shield their views through backdoor talks with candidates. According Samuel Issacharoff, a professor of Constitutional Law at the New York University of Law, in reference to political corruption, “the source of corruption was

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. Campaign finance reform

corporate taxes but are neglecting the legal aspects of corporate personhood. The main issue besetting the United States as a whole, is legal reform among corporations because it is affecting the political values, freedoms, and security of the American people. One reason why legal reform among

In the United States of America, we champion the power of the populace to elect the nation’s leaders. We are taught that each individual vote is important, and that each elected official has the responsibility of representing the electorate, lest the people cast their votes for someone else in future contests. However, in reality, elected officials have become increasingly indebted to their financial contributors while becoming less responsible to the voters themselves. A political campaign has

heart of all citizens, these citizens need to have a stronger voice when it comes to elections. This is why the implementation of an amendment that reforms the financing of campaigns is disputed greatly among scholars and political officials alike. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are entitled to first amendment rights, but the basis of this ruling is unclear. Unfortunately the overturning of such a ruling would not even guarantee a restored democracy to American elections. Some professionals

to law and, in particular, the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is for this reason that I write this article not in criticism, but in genuine confusion. During the Question & Answer portion of the September 18th faculty panel discussion regarding “Democracy & Inequality,” President Garrett and Professor Robert H. Frank, management and economics, criticized the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) that the First Amendment permits independent

logical for people to be allowed to donate to any organization that they believe shares their deeply held convictions. But contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in the Citizens United case that “Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation,” corporations are not citizens which should be protected under the constitution (Dunbar, 2012). They are large entities that are made up of potentially thousands that could not possibly share all of

foresees the near impossibility of the passage of a bill, along with many drawbacks in similar attempts to miraculously restore democracy to American citizens. Although this is a greatly debated and doubtful topic, there is still hope in the power of the people. While there may be instances where wealthy donors provide a better democratic election, in a land of the people; the majority of the voting population should control the few politicians that run the government. Esenberg’s beginning argument