Citizens United Case

In January 2008, Citizens United released a objective that was critical of Senator Hilary Clinton and planned to run commercials of it at that time. However, by the Bi vocalisationisan crowd Re constellation Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibits smokes and inwardnesss from using their cosmopolitan treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an electi matchlessering chat or for speech that expressly advocates the alternative or defeat of a sackdidate, the United States District coquet for the District of Columbia rule that the commercials violated the act.The shift was brought up to the Supreme Court and would be one of the more important cases ab bring bulge the starting line Amendment with a controversial decision. On March 24, 2009, the Supreme Court besidesk oral disputations from Malcolm Stewart, then Deputy headcounter General representing the Federal Election charge. He pointed out that with the current laws in place for the front-finance system, even a book that had the same kernel as the documentary would be banned. An even more disturbing point that Stewart do was that the government could ban a book that has just one designate about candidate advocacy.This caused the Supreme Court to ask the parties to re vie the case due(p) to two cases that Stewart used Austin v. Michigan Chamber of affair, a edict that prohibited a companionship to use its funds for or against a political candidate, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the decision that upheld the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold law. The reason for rearguing the case was to watch if they, the justices, should rule those two decisions. The royal judiciary reversed the ruling from the lower court and overruled Austin v.Michigan Chamber of Commerce and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. The boilers suit ruling was 5-4 with evaluator Stevens resist that was joined by Justice Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor. Justice Kennedy, part of the majority picture, bankd that If the source Amendmenthas whatsoever force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. In general, the Justices in the majority opinion believed that the case was based mostly on the First Amendment.Due to freedom of speech, corporations, whom the Justices believed were counted as individuals, could non be denied their right to voice out their opinion on running officials. The justices that favored the ruling brushed away the warnings that might dissolving agent in overturning the lower courts decision. The dissent justices warned that treating a corporations right to speech to be the same as an individual human was dangerous. However, octette of the justices agreed that Congress can require corporations to disclose how untold they spent and to wee-wee disclaimers in the absence of facts.Chief Justice Robe rts, one of whom that was part of the majority opinion, believed that the important principles of judicial simple mindedness andstare decisisimplicated in this case had to be addressed. He believed that overturning a past decision, such as Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, in certain circumstances were necessary. Roberts declared that cases such as segregation and minimum wage would not be as of what they are today if it were not for judicial activism. Justice Stevens wrote a fanatic dissent that was joined by the other three Justices who contend the ruling.He stated that the Courts ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions crossways the Nation. Because corporations and the general public could now spend unlimited money to put forward or demote politicians who are running for office anytime, Stevens fears that it would cause an round disturbance in the election process. Although the majority opinion did not touch sensation the laws about convey contri furtherion to the candidates, part of the argument was whether a direct contribution versus an indirect contribution was the same thing.The time between the case being introduced to the Supreme Court until the official ruling of the case created a large amount of publicity and different opinions. President Obama believed that the decision gave the corporations too such(prenominal) power to influence the election process. However, other politicians such as a Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, believed that the First Amendment applied to corporations which would allow corporations to voice out their opinions on electioneering officials. The fundamental question here is whether the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United v.Federal Election Commission a good decision or a bad decision. I personally feel that the arguments from both(prenominal) sides were valid. The fact that Congress essentially denied a form of fre e speech from a corporation is unconstitutional in my opinion. However, my opinion in corporations becoming involved in political campaigns where they might have a large impact on how people judgement a certain politician is that it is not fair. I believe that the decision make by the Supreme Court was good in part of retaining the First Amendments freedom of speech but bad in part of the campaigning process for politicians.The decision gives too a good deal power to a corporation versus the general public. If a corporation was allowed to spend without limit in the elections, politicians could strategically embolden a topic that the corporation would benefit from. This would result in the corporation to have the power to directly contribute in the campaign by running their own ads that promotes the politician. Campaigning would then come a war of getting the support of many of the biggest corporations. This gives too much power to the corporations and essentially removes the voi ces of the general public.As Obama pointed out in his state of the union address in 2010, it would also give the power to foreign corporations to helper fund a certain election. I strongly oppose any kind of foreign involvement in any political action mechanism in the United States. With the potential of candidates to sell-out to corporations would just ruin the whole election process. With the potential of unlimited spending of corporations, not only would they be allowed to patronage a political candidate, but they would also be able to flesh out candidates such as the documentary made by Citizens United.With the current campaigning process, political candidates have created blast ads that give negative images of an opposing candidate. now that corporations can voice their opinions, there may be an increase of these attack ads. Through an ethical standpoint, it ruins the integrity of the election process. The election process would not just become a fight between politicians to gain support from corporations but also a fight of who can destroy some other candidates image to the public.It not only defaces the opposing candidate, but it shows how dirty a politician can be. The election process turns into an full-scale fight between candidates who would deploy such a tactic. With the inclusion of corporations now, it would infuriate the current state of the campaigning process. I see why the Justices would overrule the lower courts decision due to the First Amendment. The argument made by Malcolm Stewart definitely gave the impression that the law was too constrictive in such a way that it banned any forms of view from a corporation of a political candidate.I would agree with how the law would be unconstitutional through Stewarts argument however, I would oppose it through an ethical view. A poll conducted by Washington Post showed that eight in ten poll respondents opposed the decision made by the Supreme Court. William Rehnquist, a creator Supreme Court justice, also opposed the decision made by the court by joining the dissent made by Stevens. Sandra Day OConnor, also another former Supreme Court justice, made a point that the checks and balances on campaign spending were demolished. However, OConnor was an author of McConnell v.Federal Election Commission. The Supreme Courts case about allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at military funerals is convertible to this case due to both cases involving the right to free speech. In both cases, the general public did not like the ruling however, it made good sense constitutionally. There may be alternatives that Congress can take in battling the problems of corporations being involved in political campaigns. Although the court overruled it, I believe that there should be some sort of regulation on how much a corporation could spend on a candidate.Instead of limiting the corporations freedom of speech, why cant we limit how much they can endorse a candidate? One can ar gue that money is not speech, so limiting the amount a corporation could spend would be constitutional. Another way to tackle the problem is to let shareholders decide on the political expenditures made by a corporation, as Great Britain does. This would let a larger majority decide on what the corporation would do for political expenditures. However, even though it is still a larger pool of people, they probably will still act in the interest of the company due them be driven by profits.Now that the court has made its decision, corporations can now spend as much as they want on politics. Many problems would arise due to this however, it would still be constitutional. I believe that the decision of overruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and partially overruling McConnell v. Federal Election Commission was good due to pursuance the First Amendment. However through a practical stance, it would create a large possibility of corrupting the campaigning process. Biblio graphy Eggen, Dan. Poll Large majority opposes Supreme Courts decision on campaign financing. Washington Post17 February 2010, n. pag. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. http//www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR201 0021701151. hypertext mark-up language. Hasen, Rick. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURRING public opinion IN CITIZENS UNITED TWO MYSTERIESCHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURRING OPINION IN CITIZENS UNITED TWO MYSTERIES . Election Law Blog. N. p. , 23 January, 2010. Web. 17 Feb 2012. http//electionlawblog. org/ muniment/015118. html. High-Court Hypocrisy. Newsweek. 22 January 2010 n. page. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. http//www. thedailybeast. om/newsweek/2010/01/22/high-court-hypocrisy. html. Liptak, Adam. Justices, 5-4, Reject unified Spending LimitJustices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit . New York quantify21 January 2010, n. pag. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. http//www. nytimes. com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus. html. Liptak, Adam. OConnor Mildly Criticizes Courts Campaign Finan ce Decision. New York time26 January 2010, n. pag. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. http//thecaucus. blogs. nytimes. com/2010/01/26/oconnor-mildly-criticizes-courts-campaign-finance-decision/? p. Robert, John. Roberts, C. J. , concurring. n. pag. Legal Information Institute. Web. 17 Feb 2012. http//www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205. ZC. html. Scalia, Antonin. Scalia, J. , concurring. n. pag. Legal Information Institute. Web. 17 Feb 2012. http//www. law. cornell. edu/supct/html/08-205. ZC1. html. Smith, Bradley. The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform. National Affairs. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Feb 2012. http//www. nationalaffairs. com/publications/detail/the-myth-of-campaign-finance-reform.