In the article “The Decision That Threatens Democracy” by Ronald Dworkin, the author explains how the Court’s Citizens United decision will negatively affect the politics in the United States because the decision allows corporations to donate any amount of money in electoral elections to the candidate of their preference. The author cites a poll that says that 80 percent of the people polled agree that corporations that help officials in their campaigns will receive “special consideration” when “matters arise that affects these corporations and organizations.” Dworkin says that after the Watergate scandals in 1971 congress passed laws, limiting the amount of money corporations could donate to prevent future corruption. However Justice Kennedy
…show more content…
Smith, the author says that the ruling in Citizens United is a way to protect political speech and that it will not affect elections because in the past, big corporation have not shown interest in participating in politics. The author start its article by emphasizing how before the ruling of Citizens United the government was able to banned books, and he cites Justice Alito saying “I find that pretty incredible”. The author mentions that by the time the court gave its decision in Citizens United case 28 states in the United State already allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. He also states that small businesses are more likely to participate in political campaigns than big corporations, yet they would not have the money to make a difference in a presidential race. From a personal point of view the Citizens United ruling is good in the way that it will allowed corporations to publish books or films. However I don’t think corporations fall into the category of free speech because they are not real people. Moreover Smith says that 28 states already allow corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money. But he does not mention which states, it could be that those states are already Republican or Democrat states that means corporations have no incentive to use their money in a race they know they will lose …show more content…
In my opinion corporations should have the right to “freedom of press” so they can publish information that can be necessary for the people to make a decision in a political campaign. However corporations are not real people with feelings therefore I don’t think they should have the “freedom of speech” because they can interpret it in a way as in Citizens Unites case allowing them to use large amounts of money in ads that could potentially change the outcome of an electoral race. And I am against that because the decision to elect officials is only “of the people, by the people, for the
Smith, the author says that the ruling in Citizens United is a way to protect political speech and that it will not affect elections because in the past, big corporation have not shown interest in participating in politics. The author start its article by emphasizing how before the ruling of Citizens United the government was able to banned books, and he cites Justice Alito saying “I find that pretty incredible”. The author mentions that by the time the court gave its decision in Citizens United case 28 states in the United State already allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. He also states that small businesses are more likely to participate in political campaigns than big corporations, yet they would not have the money to make a difference in a presidential race. From a personal point of view the Citizens United ruling is good in the way that it will allowed corporations to publish books or films. However I don’t think corporations fall into the category of free speech because they are not real people. Moreover Smith says that 28 states already allow corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money. But he does not mention which states, it could be that those states are already Republican or Democrat states that means corporations have no incentive to use their money in a race they know they will lose …show more content…
In my opinion corporations should have the right to “freedom of press” so they can publish information that can be necessary for the people to make a decision in a political campaign. However corporations are not real people with feelings therefore I don’t think they should have the “freedom of speech” because they can interpret it in a way as in Citizens Unites case allowing them to use large amounts of money in ads that could potentially change the outcome of an electoral race. And I am against that because the decision to elect officials is only “of the people, by the people, for the