Citizens United is a controversial court case that enabled corporations to spend an unlimited sum of money to promote politicians of their selection, (American Civil Liberties Union). Various organizations and individuals have taken stands on the issue on every part of the spectrum, leaving many to wonder who’s right and who’s wrong. This issue boiled down to one issue- the freedom of speech as protected by the first amendment. Some individuals argue that the decision to allow corporations to go unchecked by the government was correct because it upheld the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech to people, but on the other hand, others argue that Citizens United is leaving the door wide open to allow corruption to destroy the government
…show more content…
If I were a Justice that was responsible for determining this issue the first time it became an issue, I would certainly have had a difficult time deciding how to cast my vote. I feel like at the time of this court case, there was something to be said for the initial outcome. To many it appeared that the government was maintaining the Constitution and our rights as American citizens. Despite the apparent nobility of the outcome at the time of its release, there is too much data to suggest that more harm than help has been done. From the perspective of many views I see on the internet as I research political corruption, corporations don’t just assist in campaigning, they have ownership of politicians inside and outside of their offices! Additionally, I don’t feel like restricting funding or anonymity will decrease the political voice of corporations: these people likely have large social media followings, so in order to speak out about a politician, all they need to do is release a statement to their many Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media network followers. Plainly, though it was likely an honest mistake of the Justices of the time, Citizens United does not belong in our government as too many corrupt individuals have seized the opportunity to gain wealth and recognition through wrongfully legal
If I were a Justice that was responsible for determining this issue the first time it became an issue, I would certainly have had a difficult time deciding how to cast my vote. I feel like at the time of this court case, there was something to be said for the initial outcome. To many it appeared that the government was maintaining the Constitution and our rights as American citizens. Despite the apparent nobility of the outcome at the time of its release, there is too much data to suggest that more harm than help has been done. From the perspective of many views I see on the internet as I research political corruption, corporations don’t just assist in campaigning, they have ownership of politicians inside and outside of their offices! Additionally, I don’t feel like restricting funding or anonymity will decrease the political voice of corporations: these people likely have large social media followings, so in order to speak out about a politician, all they need to do is release a statement to their many Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media network followers. Plainly, though it was likely an honest mistake of the Justices of the time, Citizens United does not belong in our government as too many corrupt individuals have seized the opportunity to gain wealth and recognition through wrongfully legal