This drastically impacts the marketplace of ideas. John Stuart Mills in his book, On Liberty, creates the marketplace of ideas. This marketplace subsists on the perception that all speech has value and needs to face criticism equally in a public sphere.
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 …show more content…
This ruling focused on a conservative corporation called Citizens United. They were releasing a documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie which negatively portrayed Hillary Clinton. Discouraging people to vote for Hillary Clinton was the intent behind the film and thus, it needed to follow the Federal Election Commission’s regulations on advertisements. According to Cassandra Gurrola with a Bachelor 's in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Claremont McKenna College, “the film was ‘publicly distributed’ within 30 days of a primary election and was considered to be an ‘electioneering communication’ that was financed from the general treasury of a corporation” (Gurrola). The 30-day limitation was put in place to prevent voters from being easily swayed to vote for a certain candidate with a flood of corporate donations. Citizens United, a Super PAC, made this movie to deter voters from Clinton and, as a result, was found to be in violation of the …show more content…
The court recognized in Buckley v. Valeo that the First Amendment protects political speech. Since that decision, limitations have been put on political speech to prevent corruption into our democratic processes that were previously considered to be legal. The court ultimately decided that a dialogue is needed in our election process, and that displaying a movie was one way to accomplish this. According to Oyez in cooperation with the Chicago-Kent School of Law, “The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office” (“Citizens United v.”). This decision drastically impacted campaigns by allowing PACs the ability to spend unlimited funds of
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 …show more content…
This ruling focused on a conservative corporation called Citizens United. They were releasing a documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie which negatively portrayed Hillary Clinton. Discouraging people to vote for Hillary Clinton was the intent behind the film and thus, it needed to follow the Federal Election Commission’s regulations on advertisements. According to Cassandra Gurrola with a Bachelor 's in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Claremont McKenna College, “the film was ‘publicly distributed’ within 30 days of a primary election and was considered to be an ‘electioneering communication’ that was financed from the general treasury of a corporation” (Gurrola). The 30-day limitation was put in place to prevent voters from being easily swayed to vote for a certain candidate with a flood of corporate donations. Citizens United, a Super PAC, made this movie to deter voters from Clinton and, as a result, was found to be in violation of the …show more content…
The court recognized in Buckley v. Valeo that the First Amendment protects political speech. Since that decision, limitations have been put on political speech to prevent corruption into our democratic processes that were previously considered to be legal. The court ultimately decided that a dialogue is needed in our election process, and that displaying a movie was one way to accomplish this. According to Oyez in cooperation with the Chicago-Kent School of Law, “The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office” (“Citizens United v.”). This decision drastically impacted campaigns by allowing PACs the ability to spend unlimited funds of