Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission Case Analysis

Great Essays
The primary argument and deciding factor in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2008) was that Citizens United’s First Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court is held accountable towards upholding the constitution and upon scrutiny of all relevant rulings, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2008). The procedure of the Supreme Court’s ruling was a series of addressing previous held court precedents, including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2008). Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in …show more content…
Federal Election Commission, 2008). The Court also overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that maintained the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act section 203, thus releasing restrictions on independent corporate expenditures (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2008). The Court specifically ruled that government may not suppress political speech on the basis of speaker’s corporate identity (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2008). Rather than regulating corporate speech, the Court interpreted the disclosure ruling as unconstitutional to protect Citizen United’s freedom of speech (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2008). Finally, the Supreme Court maintained the ruling of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 claiming that the disclosure requirements denoted in section 203 were violated by the advertisements for the Citizens United documentary (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, …show more content…
The company understood the legal practices and procedures leading to a ruling of a First Amendment violation (Epstein, 2011). By releasing their film through a private industry, Citizens United established their freedom to withhold donor information from government bodies so long as they were following established laws (Epstein, 2011). The only exceptions to the First Amendment are criminal provisions, none of which were performed by Citizens United (Epstein, 2011). Epstein makes the argument that for governing bodies, it becomes more difficult to justify additional unprecedented restrictions in the presence of a multitude of additional restrictions (Epstein, 2011). With so many restrictive laws in place against corporations, it would be unconstitutional to infringe upon the company’s right to express their support of an independent body such as a super PAC (Epstein, 2011). Justice Stevens claims corporations are not a voting entity, and thus are not eligible to be protected by the First Amendment (Epstein, 2011). The argument against this would be the expression of a corporation is equal to a group of like-minded individuals. While groups do not have the power to vote, they have the power to express themselves freely (Epstein, 2011). Another argument could be made that use of money is not a form of expression and thus should not be protected by the First

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The most recent argument against campaign finance reform stems from Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which “addresses the question whether federal campaign-finance law limits the right of the activist group Citizens United to distribute … a documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie” (Smith). United States Deputy Solicitor Malcom Stewart argued before the court that certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – more commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act –could in fact be constitutionally applied to limit … forms of speech” (Smith) such as books and DVDs that included “one line of candidate advocacy”…

    • 852 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    A corporation funding a candidate would inevitably lead to quid pro quo. Even if it doesn’t, that company would have it’s own interests in mind, and would try to get a candidate elected if they promise things beneficial to the profits of the company. I can’t say that I agree with the court’s ruling, although I do understand why it was made. The First Amendment clearly supports the right to free speech and freedom of press. Throughout many years, corporations have gained personhood, meaning that many of the rights given to people in the First Amendment also apply to corporations.…

    • 1300 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which occurred in 2010, is a standout amongst the most misconstrued U.S. Preeminent Court choices of cutting edge times. A standard, sensible decision, Citizens United by one means or another turned into a lightning bar for revolutionaries, would-be blue pencils and fanatic hacks over the political range. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a point of interest 5-to-4 choices by the United States Supreme Court that corporate financing of independent political programs in hopeful races can't be restricted, on the grounds that doing as such would be in resistance with the First Amendment. The choice came about because of the non-benefit company Citizens United's case under the watchful…

    • 319 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the case of Citizens United, the Supreme Court had established that individual people and groups such as special interest groups, for example, could form committees in which they could gain an unlimited amount of money in order for them to run against a particular candidate, or political party. This is…

    • 797 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If corporations had our rights, the world wouldn’t be as safe, and people would get away with crimes more often. Corporations shouldn’t have our rights if it means causing the world more problems. Corporations would be able to contribute infinite amounts of money to political campaigns and candidates. Corporations can’t give money directly to campaigns and candidates, but they can do things such as advertising for them that costs money. If a candidate has their own corporation, they could use money in the corporation to help themselves get advertised, and become well known.…

    • 480 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Corporations are comprised of people, but that group is not a person itself. The Bill of Rights "[sets] the rights of individual men and women," not for groups of men or groups of women…

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Therefore, since these contribution limits would allow candidates to perform effective advocacy, and it would prevent corruption, the defendants argued that this law is constitutional. Amici Curiae Brief in support of defendant at 6, Liberty Pac., v. Madison, No. 1:12-cv-05811 (Dis. Aug. 30,…

    • 1321 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Campaign Reform

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages

    This act incorporates a few provisions to help stop the use of nonfederal money, which is also known as soft money. The act stops national parties from promoting and squandering soft money, it demands state and other committees to fund specific federal activities with hard money, and limits fundraising by federal and nonfederal candidates. In 2010 the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission was a case dealing with regulating how much organizations spent on campaigns. The courts had decided that it was perfectly fine for labor unions and corporations to spend as much money as they want to help sway people towards a certain candidate. The choice that the courts made about the money did not affect the grants, because it was still illegal for the money to be given straight towards the candidates.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Democracy for Sale Five years ago Citizens United spearheaded a campaign to steal the people's power and unfortunately the Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the controversial right-wing group, in the devastating ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This disastrous move by the "Supreme Court scrapped the previous campaign finance laws and essentially declared that companies are allowed to buy politicians by circumventing restrictions via PACs, political action committees" (Tedford), thus stealing the power of the masses and giving our power to those whose bank accounts resemble that of a country's population. Sadly, the affluent 1% of Americans hold more power than the other 99% of this nation because of the current government's pay to win democracy. Without any…

    • 842 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Baker Vs Tennessee

    • 240 Words
    • 1 Pages

    According to the Tennessee State Constitution, Tennessee is required to redraw their legislative districts every ten years so that each district would have almost equal population. Charles Baker and other residents complained that since Tennessee had not redistricted for almost sixty years (1901), Shelby County had about ten times the amount of people as the rural district, decreasing the value of their votes. He argued by having this population difference, Tennessee could not uphold the “one person, one vote” requirement. Baker sued the Secretary of State for Tennessee, Joe Carr, for ignoring this Tennessee law. He claimed that this action violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,…

    • 240 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the decision half of the court said that congress did have the right in state votes and that 18 year olds should have the right to vote but the other half said that congress lacked the right for federal elections and 18 year old should have the right. This left the court seriously…

    • 615 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Throughout its long history, when the Court needed to affirm its legitimacy, it has cited Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison” (McBride). This case answered the question that the Courts do have the authority to interpret the Constitution and declare acts by Congress and the President unconstitutional. When laws are in contrary to the Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to review and resolve the issues and apply a decision correct to the law. Lastly, the case set a precedence and brought forward with emphasis that the Constitution is the law of the land and the Supreme Court decision is the final arbiter of the…

    • 547 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    But in order to determine the legality of business proceedings, the legal fiction treating a corporation as an artificial person was created by the 14th amendment. Corporations have legal rights a normal person would have and more such as the right to spend money in elections. I think the idea of a corporation being a person is problematic because corporations are physically not a person and will never be a person, but they have more rights than the average person in this world. It is unfair and hard to understand why. Our world has given corporations the power to be a “person” by not standing up for their rights and allowing them to get away with many…

    • 410 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On Saturday, December 9th, the US Supreme Court voted 5-4 to abandon the hand recounts in the counties and set a new hearing for December 11th. This hearing lasted for two solid days, and on December 12th, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Bush v Gore and reversed the verdict made by the Florida Supreme Court. The court ruled that: not all ballots were being treated equally and thus a violation of the Constitution 's 14th amendment equal protection clause, the Florida Supreme Court would be required to set up new voting practices and standards to follow in the recount. However, the justices were split 5-4 over how to solve the problem at hand. Five of the justices expressed that the initial date already set for the recounted votes should infact…

    • 1189 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Holder court case the justices ruled that Section four is unconstitutional and that the methods used can no longer be used to give preclearance. The majority decision, given by Chief Justice John G. Roberts points to the past skepticism about needing to update the Voting Rights Act.4 First he states the act developed have an expiration date, and that time is well passed according to the majority decision. He also discusses the tenth amendment, giving powers to the states that are not specifically given to the federal government, was part of the main argument for the majority opinion because the justices thought that this removes authority from the states, who constitutionally should be treated equally.4 Second the chief justice points multiple times to the fact that times have changed since the historic 1965 case fifty years ago.4 He describes that in 1965 this part of the Voting Rights Act made sense and had a real purpose, but section four was developed with an expiration date for the quickly changing United States. Since the United States was changing it was necessary for Congress to completely change the Voting Rights Act, but failed to change section four. Lastly the decisions leaves Congress the obligation to change section five, based on the newly developed United States and modern times which may now consist of a growing Latino population.…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays