21 thoughts on “Week 15: Voting, Elections, and Campaign Finance”
There are some strong arguments on either side. The argument for the Citizens United definitely stands on the fundamental right that every American value, Freedom of speech granted by the 1st Amendment. It makes it unconstitutional for Congress to pass any law that would abridge freedom of speech. Interestingly enough, it does not say whos freedom that is, the freedom of a person, the freedom of a citizen, or alike. I also think that speech is one of the essential mechanisms for democracy as it was mentioned in this case.
The strongest arguments against Citizens United are a possibility of foreign control of the corporations, the anticorruption interest, the ability to vote as a matter of free speech, and the distinction between natural and artificial persons and how these two should be treated in the political sphere.
The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case served to further exacerbate the division between the conservative and liberal perspectives on campaign finance, independent expenditure, and, to a greater extent, First Amendment protections. My personal sentiments regarding both the majority and dissenting opinions in this case are interestingly mixed, given that one appeals to my general understanding of the Constitution and the other my morality.
The crux of Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion focused on the potentiality of corruption in electing public officials. To quote Stevens directly, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” With this in mind, there is, surprisingly, an intriguing overlap between Stevens’ argument here and the recent impeachment of President Trump. In both situations, the concept of quid pro quo reared its ugly head, suggesting that the legitimacy and fairness of public elections can be greatly jeopardized by external interference. In Citizens United v. FEC; however, the threat of said interference comes from private corporations and their overwhelming ability to help “purchase” positions of public office for ally candidates. While this scenario, of course, repulses the moral side of my being, it is ultimately complicated by the constitutional doctrine of corporate personhood. Corporate personhood prescribes First Amendment protections to corporations, treating them in such instances as individual persons. With respect to this longstanding and Court-honored notion, I have to concur with the majority opinion. The concept of corporate personhood extends the right of freedom to speech to entities such as Citizens United, ultimately permitting them exercise said right by publicly endorsing political candidates of their choosing. I would disagree that it would be democratic and just to disallow corporations (or, in other words, groups of natural persons) from publicly advocating for one candidate or another. If corruption is the issue (which I do agree exists in elections), a different route would have to be taken to combat it outside of the First Amendment.
The strongest arguments of the Citizens United decision from the majority opinion is that the First Amendment on free speech prevents the government from restricting it by controlling the amount of money that corporations and unions are allowed to spend to support a candidate while criticizing the opposing candidate. The majority argued that the speech is essential to the functioning of government and that political speech from corporations should deserve the same respect as they are not natural persons meaning that the transmission of information, debates, and policy issues should be open to everyone. In addition, there are no laws that describe which corporations are media and which aren’t so it would be difficult to distinguish what is among the corporations that are promoting/slandering candidates. Whereas, the strongest arguments on the dissent opinion is when they argued that the First Amendment is flawed from the majority opinion because it does not solve the question of whether Citizens United may be required to finance its messages with the money in the PAC and the fact that it must be treated as natural persons is inaccurate because corporations are not humans who vote or run for office. Framers also did not have a broad view of free speech as they believed that corporations need to be regulated with public welfare so for the free speech clause to be extended to corporations is too far of a constitutional decision.
The strongest argument for the majority is First Amendment Rights. According to Justice Kennedy, “for these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” and thus extending the First Amendment right to corporations as well. The case establishes that not just people in the United States are protected but corporations, agencies, and companies as well. The Constitution does not explicitly say “Corporations,” but the interpretation of Constructional rights and the decision of this case set a precedent in further establishing who/what is protected under the Constitution.
The most persuasive argument for the minority is corruption. According to Justice Stevens, “Corruption can take many forms,” and the majority has open the floodgates in allowing corporations to become protected under First Amendment rights. In allowing corporations protection, the Supreme Court has also threatened our democratic society.
The ‘Antidistortion’ subsection in Justice Stevens’ dissent hit home for me. Corporations are n o t people. It doesn’t get much more basic than that, and for the Court to take this easily understandable argument and spin it to reflect something else entirely sets a dangerous precedent. As Justice Stevens notes, corporations “have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” For those that argue about the people that stand behind corporations, Justice Stevens gives a good response when he notes that exceptions like these give people like that a tremendous amount of leeway to “scratch each other’s backs.” Corporations, with their power, finances, and resources, have no business in politics. They have benefits that “natural persons” do not, they don’t “live life” like plain people do, and they worry about money in their pockets and little else.
Thank you, Daniela. There’s an interesting contrast between yours and Eric’s corporate personhood takes. I’ll bring this up in class (to foment polarization)
The court’s decision held a very strong argument regarding the use of Freedom of Press clause as it is used and enacted by corporations and individuals regardless of their identities/positions. “The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation,” (1). Contrary to popular decisions such as in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the decision in Citizens United stated that anyone had the right to speak freely even if that ‘person’ or identity speaking is, in fact, a corporation. Justice Stevens, however, was a dissenting opinion – who argued that the ‘people’ did not cover corporations and that the intention of freedom of speech by the framers of the constitution was solely for individuals. “We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment, and many legal scholars have long since rejected the concession theory of the corporation. But “historical context is usually relevant,” ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted), and in light of the Court’s effort to cast itself as guardian of ancient values, it pays to remember that nothing in our constitutional history dictates today’s outcome. To the contrary, this history helps illuminate just how extraordinarily dissonant the decision is,” (4). The strongest position in the dissenting argument is the fact that there is money involved (campaign money) that may alter elections and other political organizations if their speech is not treated as limited under the law.
The strongest argument for Citizens United on the majority opinion side is that the law prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to promote speech defined as “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate is unconstitutional. They argue that the law prohibiting this is unconstitutional because it restricts a corporation or union’s free speech. They argue that the first amendment guarantees free speech and this law violates the rights of corporations/unions because it puts restrictions on when, where, and how they can speak freely.
The strongest argument from the dissenting side is that the majority opinion side is not actually addressing the real issue in this case. The dissenting side states that the real issue is not about freedom of speech, but about whether Citizens United has the right to use the funds from its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30 day period before the last primary election, as it was prohibited by law. In addressing the wrong issue, the side of the majority opinion failed to answer the real issues in this case, like whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC, or when a corporation can engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. Instead, they only state that corporations should be treated like people and therefore should be entitled to free speech, even though corporations are clearly not people and should not be treated as if they are.
The court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC 2010 that political spending by corporation’s associations and unions is a form of protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
In a 5-4 conservative vote the court ruled that partisan bias could not be restraint. Corporations are entitled and protected under the U.S. Amendments but are not treated as humans. In the dissenting opinion judges stated that protection of press existed because it was an informative and educational function. Therefore, corporation’s non-profit organizations are able to forms SUPER PACS, PACS to spend amounts of their soft money to influence to the public on their ideal candidate or their opposing candidate. Many may argue that commercials aren’t influential but, when the majority of the public are uninformed and uneducated and unaware of the association between the two. The potential harm to the lower classes will be impacted because this manipulation will be to favor regulations that will benefit the corporation and not for more green jobs, healthcare for all, and air and environment policies. Instead of corporations being restrained without bailouts and subsidies their money is used to control the government which is why democracy is in crisis.
It’s ironic that non-humans have rights and undocumented immigrants are treated differently in the United States. This is clearly representation of money being more powerful than voice.
Citizens United challenged the McCain Feingold act before airing its Hilary Clinton Movie. They argued against its electioneering communications violated its free speech under the first Amendment. The court ruled that McCain Feingold act banned corporate and union expenditures which was unconstitutional but also making it clear that “this the issue was not about money and politics.”
I disagree with the court’s decision because basically they are saying they will close their eyes while corporations use their money to indirectly use unlimited amount of money for their political candidate. This is outrages because it is illegal for corporations and unions to donate directly to a campaign. This is unclear also because clearly corporations and unions will find ways around this to contribute money to promote commercial ads and other political tools to influence the public.
Citizens United majority opinion ruled that the First Amendment prohibits a limit on corporate funding on broadcasts in candidate elections. The justice believed that the governments rationale for limits on corporate spending was not persuasive to restrict political speech. Political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Justices also believed that some might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive while others might find it neither high art nor a fair discussion but those choices and assessments are not for the Government to take. Preventing corruption can justify limits on donations to candidates but not on independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for elected offices. The Court also rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons”. Thus meaning that corporations have free speech rights and their political speech cannot be restricted anymore than of an individual.
In the Citizens United dissenting opinion, the dissenters felt that the First Amendment protects people not corporations because the Constitution was established for “We the People” and to protect the individual. They felt that the government should be allowed to ban corporate money because corporations can accumulate so much money that it may overwhelm the debate and drown out non corporate voices in an election. They also believed that corruption is not limited to bribes and direct transactions.
The strongest argument in the Citizen Untied case from the majority opinion lies with their assertion that the case is a first amendment violation. The majority opinion isn’t asserting that corporations possess free speech rights for the first time, they assume this to be true based on 20 different past cases. By framing the case on a first amendment violation, the majority opinion can remove the discussion of corruption or the undue power that corporations wield. If we accept their premise, then any opposition would be viewed as anti-free speech.
On the other hand, the dissenting opinion questions the premise of the majority’s argument by invoking an originalist interpretation of the constitution. These justices interpret the constitution through the lens of the framers and how they viewed corporations. The framers had little trouble in distinguishing corporations and people, especially since the framers saw corporations as quasi public entities working to serve society. It was understood that corporations possess immense power to influence the government and thus they needed to be regulated, not given constitutional protections. Another great argument presented against the majority was stressing the implications of the majority’s ruling in the case. Would multinational corporations be given the same first amendment rights to exert influence on our government and elected officials? If corporations have free speech why not extend their rights to include the right to vote as well; after all voting is a form of speech. These implications and unanswered questions frame the ruling of the case as a short sighted decision; freely handing out rights to corporate entities.
The majority’s best arguments are banning certain stages of speech and the confusion of the media exemption. Section 441b prohibits all corporations from using money as political speech for 30 or 60 days before an election. This is a ban on a particular method of expressing speech for a specific time. Even though it’s tailored to a specific group, it’s still an infringement on speech. Justice Kennedy also mentions the double standard applied to media corporations. They use a corporate model, accumulate large amounts of wealth, are tied to multi-million dollar business, but are somehow can’t exert the same influence a non-profit or for-profit corporation can. If proponents of this exemption used the freedom of the press argument, they would have to have some agreement with Justice Kennedy. The dissent’s best case is the break down of corporations vs. natural people. The majority is fine with affirming the right to free speech of corporations but not other rights endowed to natural people. If the distinction between the two is minimal or non-existent, then why not apply the majorities logic the 2nd,3rd,4th, or 5th amendment to corporations. Even in the Framer’s time, corporations, while different from today’s model, were seen as a separate entity within the limits of regulation and outside the limits of the Constitution. While the majority is right on Section 441b banning speech, it creates inconsistencies when applied to corporations.
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision led to the Supreme Court determining that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, because doing so would violate the First Amendment. The outcomes of this case concluded with various arguments for both sides that led to much dissent. The majority argued that the First Amendment protection extends to corporations, and ultimately political speech is necessary to a democracy. “The First Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office” hence why speech of any sort shall be protected by all means. On the flip side with the, particularly with Justice Stevens argument, he states that corporations are not members of society therefore concluding that they should not be protected by the First Amendment. “In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framers believed “the freedom of speech” would extend equally to all corporate speakers.” Stevens essentially is revealing the fact that the decision of the case is dissonant because the framers of our constitution would have not been able to foresee corporate participation in elections.
The strongest argument of the majority opinion is bringing up that media corporations were exempt from the §441b’s ban. It shows the complications within the extent of the law because media corporations are still corporations with a vast amount of wealth. There are also ambiguous rulings of whether a corporation should be regarded as individual persons in the eyes of the law or even distinguishing between different types of corporations. However, the dissenting opinion had a very solid response because they acknowledged and asserted that corporations are not and should not be treated, as individual people. The dissenting piece explicitly explains why they shouldn’t enjoy the same protections as people and I agree. It is also concerning to me that the court had the ability to protect corporations in this case but social media and technology companies can still legally get away with online censorship and tracking user information because they’re private companies.
Money and politics have always controlled this country. Citizen United case demonstrates the amount of how badly corporate is involved in politics. Congress had passed numerous legislation to limit campaign spending from corporations. FEC ensures that candidates have imitations on campaign spending. Citizens United released a film that was very critical of Hillary Clinton. The movie could be considered as “electioneering communications”, however, the argument was that preventing this film being released violated the First Amendment. Citizens United claimed that film wasn’t clearly for or against a candidate. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Therefore, the majority ruled for Citizens United. They argued that the Freedom Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting money spent by corporations, labor unions, and other associations, on political campaigns. Justice Kennedy wrote ” if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, for simply engaging in political speech” which basically freed corporations and unions to spend as much money as they want to elect for defeat candidates as long as they don’t directly contribute. The First Amendment also protects associations of individuals and not just individual speakers. The dissenting warned that the court’s ruling threatened ” to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation”. Justice Stevens argued that the Court continuously denies Congress the power to safeguard against the improper use of money is denying the nation its protection. Not only that, but there’s also a possibility of corruption as contributors might gain political excess through expenditures.
Some strong arguments made by the Dissent is that there is a distinction from corporation and the people. Corporations do not represent the people and hold no values or beliefs so they cannot not vote or run for office. There is a reason why Congress placed a special limitation in 1907, and that was to protect people from corporations who may be corrupted and abuse their power especially during the electoral processes. Money holds great power which common people don’t have and is the reason why voting is so important.
Some arguments made by the Majority is that Congress can’t pass laws that go against the 1st Amendment, “Free Speech.” This is because free speech is essential for democracy which allows civic discourse among the people and only the people to interpret what is spread online, not the government. The they argue that PACs are a separate association from the corporation which have more “burdensome” regulations to follow.
The Citizens United case addresses the limits placed on corporations funding an electoral candidate under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. This act prohibits corporations from use treasury funds to promote a candidate. It also prohibits corporations from running ads within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Citizens United wanted to run an ad for Hillary within 30 days of the primary election and this would’ve violated the Act. They claimed that the act was unconstitutional.
Majority of the Court ruled that the section 441b of the Act which put prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures was indeed unconstitutional. The majority argued that this section violated the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. They argued that the ads were a form of speech and it cannot be prohibited by Congress just because it was coming from a corporation. Justice Kennedy who wrote on behalf of the majority stated that corporations have the same right to the first amendment as individuals. If an individuals right to freedom of speech cannot be prohibited, then neither should a corporation’s.
Justice Stevens dissented, joined with Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. Justice Stevens disagreed with the Court that section 441b went against the first amendment. Stevens argued that corporations should not be viewed on the same level as individuals. Corporations are separate entities because they are made up of people who are not even eligible to vote. Justice Stevens also stated that one of Congress’ motives with the act was to avoid corruption. Based on the ruling in Burroughs v. U.S., Congress has the right to prevent the improper use of money to influence an election. By placing limitations on how much corporations can spend on a candidate, Congress is preventing corporations from corrupting the election process.
The strongest argument for the Citizens United decision is that newspapers and media entities are corporations that sometimes spin information to tell the story they want to be told, thereby acknowledging that corporations exercise free speech, yet Congress does not restrict what the companies can produce. Movies executives spend millions of dollars to produce movies. The downside of Citizens United means the wealthiest people in the country can flood airwaves with ads that support their agenda ex: gun rights advocates and planned parenthood donors. These organizations sometimes skew facts or intentionally exclude certain facts to forward their own agendas. Big money in politics can be a curse and a blessing depending on the politics at the time.
The strongest argument on the majority opinion in Citizens United is that “…The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. …The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations”(Citizens United Majority, 2;4). Justice Kennedy and the majority of those who were in an argument with the opinion of the court believed that regardless of if this was about a corporation or not. He also uses precedents to establish that corporations had always been granted first amendment protections. The strong argument on the dissenting argument is that Justice Stevens argued that the founding fathers did not intend on corporations being guaranteed first amendment protection. “The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind”(Citizens United Dissent, 4). Another strong argument by the dissenter is the belief that the Supreme Court is losing the respect from the public by engaging in issues of super PAC and corruption. Justice Stevens writes, “Virtually every one of its arguments was made and rejected in those cases, and the majority opinion is essentially an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents. The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and McConnell is the composition of this Court”(Citizens United Dissent, 2). With the Supreme Court engaging and using their political power to rule on this case in favor of the corporations instead of the people, it effectively presents themselves more negatively towards the general public.
The majority opinion argues that the prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is a ban on speech. If the Court decided that the restrictions were valid, there would be issues with government restricting speech in the future. “Government could repress speech by ‘attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas,’ for ‘effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others.’” The Court did not want to overstep boundaries with freedom of speech, as a ruling that advocated for the restrictions could potentially result in further restrictions on speech. Democracy relies on speech and it holds the government accountable. Justice Kennedy was, I believe, particularly convincing in that point. Speech is essential for democracy and democracy cannot be hindered; thus speech cannot be hindered.
The dissent stresses the significant distinction between corporate and human speakers. The amount of resources from corporations cannot compare to an individual/human speaker. Corporate identity has its power, resources, etc., that are incomparable than an individual identity. Thus, the two cannot be conflated, “corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings” but they are not who the Constitution is meant to protect.
Constitutional Law (Powers): Spring 2020 
There are some strong arguments on either side. The argument for the Citizens United definitely stands on the fundamental right that every American value, Freedom of speech granted by the 1st Amendment. It makes it unconstitutional for Congress to pass any law that would abridge freedom of speech. Interestingly enough, it does not say whos freedom that is, the freedom of a person, the freedom of a citizen, or alike. I also think that speech is one of the essential mechanisms for democracy as it was mentioned in this case.
The strongest arguments against Citizens United are a possibility of foreign control of the corporations, the anticorruption interest, the ability to vote as a matter of free speech, and the distinction between natural and artificial persons and how these two should be treated in the political sphere.
LikeLike
The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case served to further exacerbate the division between the conservative and liberal perspectives on campaign finance, independent expenditure, and, to a greater extent, First Amendment protections. My personal sentiments regarding both the majority and dissenting opinions in this case are interestingly mixed, given that one appeals to my general understanding of the Constitution and the other my morality.
The crux of Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion focused on the potentiality of corruption in electing public officials. To quote Stevens directly, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” With this in mind, there is, surprisingly, an intriguing overlap between Stevens’ argument here and the recent impeachment of President Trump. In both situations, the concept of quid pro quo reared its ugly head, suggesting that the legitimacy and fairness of public elections can be greatly jeopardized by external interference. In Citizens United v. FEC; however, the threat of said interference comes from private corporations and their overwhelming ability to help “purchase” positions of public office for ally candidates. While this scenario, of course, repulses the moral side of my being, it is ultimately complicated by the constitutional doctrine of corporate personhood. Corporate personhood prescribes First Amendment protections to corporations, treating them in such instances as individual persons. With respect to this longstanding and Court-honored notion, I have to concur with the majority opinion. The concept of corporate personhood extends the right of freedom to speech to entities such as Citizens United, ultimately permitting them exercise said right by publicly endorsing political candidates of their choosing. I would disagree that it would be democratic and just to disallow corporations (or, in other words, groups of natural persons) from publicly advocating for one candidate or another. If corruption is the issue (which I do agree exists in elections), a different route would have to be taken to combat it outside of the First Amendment.
LikeLike
Thanks, Eric – and great comments on corporate personhood
LikeLike
The strongest arguments of the Citizens United decision from the majority opinion is that the First Amendment on free speech prevents the government from restricting it by controlling the amount of money that corporations and unions are allowed to spend to support a candidate while criticizing the opposing candidate. The majority argued that the speech is essential to the functioning of government and that political speech from corporations should deserve the same respect as they are not natural persons meaning that the transmission of information, debates, and policy issues should be open to everyone. In addition, there are no laws that describe which corporations are media and which aren’t so it would be difficult to distinguish what is among the corporations that are promoting/slandering candidates. Whereas, the strongest arguments on the dissent opinion is when they argued that the First Amendment is flawed from the majority opinion because it does not solve the question of whether Citizens United may be required to finance its messages with the money in the PAC and the fact that it must be treated as natural persons is inaccurate because corporations are not humans who vote or run for office. Framers also did not have a broad view of free speech as they believed that corporations need to be regulated with public welfare so for the free speech clause to be extended to corporations is too far of a constitutional decision.
LikeLike
The strongest argument for the majority is First Amendment Rights. According to Justice Kennedy, “for these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” and thus extending the First Amendment right to corporations as well. The case establishes that not just people in the United States are protected but corporations, agencies, and companies as well. The Constitution does not explicitly say “Corporations,” but the interpretation of Constructional rights and the decision of this case set a precedent in further establishing who/what is protected under the Constitution.
The most persuasive argument for the minority is corruption. According to Justice Stevens, “Corruption can take many forms,” and the majority has open the floodgates in allowing corporations to become protected under First Amendment rights. In allowing corporations protection, the Supreme Court has also threatened our democratic society.
LikeLike
The ‘Antidistortion’ subsection in Justice Stevens’ dissent hit home for me. Corporations are n o t people. It doesn’t get much more basic than that, and for the Court to take this easily understandable argument and spin it to reflect something else entirely sets a dangerous precedent. As Justice Stevens notes, corporations “have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” For those that argue about the people that stand behind corporations, Justice Stevens gives a good response when he notes that exceptions like these give people like that a tremendous amount of leeway to “scratch each other’s backs.” Corporations, with their power, finances, and resources, have no business in politics. They have benefits that “natural persons” do not, they don’t “live life” like plain people do, and they worry about money in their pockets and little else.
LikeLike
Thank you, Daniela. There’s an interesting contrast between yours and Eric’s corporate personhood takes. I’ll bring this up in class (to foment polarization)
LikeLike
The court’s decision held a very strong argument regarding the use of Freedom of Press clause as it is used and enacted by corporations and individuals regardless of their identities/positions. “The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation,” (1). Contrary to popular decisions such as in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the decision in Citizens United stated that anyone had the right to speak freely even if that ‘person’ or identity speaking is, in fact, a corporation. Justice Stevens, however, was a dissenting opinion – who argued that the ‘people’ did not cover corporations and that the intention of freedom of speech by the framers of the constitution was solely for individuals. “We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment, and many legal scholars have long since rejected the concession theory of the corporation. But “historical context is usually relevant,” ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted), and in light of the Court’s effort to cast itself as guardian of ancient values, it pays to remember that nothing in our constitutional history dictates today’s outcome. To the contrary, this history helps illuminate just how extraordinarily dissonant the decision is,” (4). The strongest position in the dissenting argument is the fact that there is money involved (campaign money) that may alter elections and other political organizations if their speech is not treated as limited under the law.
m.jenniferbernard@gmail.com
LikeLike
The strongest argument for Citizens United on the majority opinion side is that the law prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to promote speech defined as “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate is unconstitutional. They argue that the law prohibiting this is unconstitutional because it restricts a corporation or union’s free speech. They argue that the first amendment guarantees free speech and this law violates the rights of corporations/unions because it puts restrictions on when, where, and how they can speak freely.
The strongest argument from the dissenting side is that the majority opinion side is not actually addressing the real issue in this case. The dissenting side states that the real issue is not about freedom of speech, but about whether Citizens United has the right to use the funds from its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30 day period before the last primary election, as it was prohibited by law. In addressing the wrong issue, the side of the majority opinion failed to answer the real issues in this case, like whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC, or when a corporation can engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. Instead, they only state that corporations should be treated like people and therefore should be entitled to free speech, even though corporations are clearly not people and should not be treated as if they are.
LikeLike
The court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC 2010 that political spending by corporation’s associations and unions is a form of protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
In a 5-4 conservative vote the court ruled that partisan bias could not be restraint. Corporations are entitled and protected under the U.S. Amendments but are not treated as humans. In the dissenting opinion judges stated that protection of press existed because it was an informative and educational function. Therefore, corporation’s non-profit organizations are able to forms SUPER PACS, PACS to spend amounts of their soft money to influence to the public on their ideal candidate or their opposing candidate. Many may argue that commercials aren’t influential but, when the majority of the public are uninformed and uneducated and unaware of the association between the two. The potential harm to the lower classes will be impacted because this manipulation will be to favor regulations that will benefit the corporation and not for more green jobs, healthcare for all, and air and environment policies. Instead of corporations being restrained without bailouts and subsidies their money is used to control the government which is why democracy is in crisis.
It’s ironic that non-humans have rights and undocumented immigrants are treated differently in the United States. This is clearly representation of money being more powerful than voice.
Citizens United challenged the McCain Feingold act before airing its Hilary Clinton Movie. They argued against its electioneering communications violated its free speech under the first Amendment. The court ruled that McCain Feingold act banned corporate and union expenditures which was unconstitutional but also making it clear that “this the issue was not about money and politics.”
I disagree with the court’s decision because basically they are saying they will close their eyes while corporations use their money to indirectly use unlimited amount of money for their political candidate. This is outrages because it is illegal for corporations and unions to donate directly to a campaign. This is unclear also because clearly corporations and unions will find ways around this to contribute money to promote commercial ads and other political tools to influence the public.
LikeLike
Citizens United majority opinion ruled that the First Amendment prohibits a limit on corporate funding on broadcasts in candidate elections. The justice believed that the governments rationale for limits on corporate spending was not persuasive to restrict political speech. Political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Justices also believed that some might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive while others might find it neither high art nor a fair discussion but those choices and assessments are not for the Government to take. Preventing corruption can justify limits on donations to candidates but not on independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for elected offices. The Court also rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons”. Thus meaning that corporations have free speech rights and their political speech cannot be restricted anymore than of an individual.
In the Citizens United dissenting opinion, the dissenters felt that the First Amendment protects people not corporations because the Constitution was established for “We the People” and to protect the individual. They felt that the government should be allowed to ban corporate money because corporations can accumulate so much money that it may overwhelm the debate and drown out non corporate voices in an election. They also believed that corruption is not limited to bribes and direct transactions.
LikeLike
The strongest argument in the Citizen Untied case from the majority opinion lies with their assertion that the case is a first amendment violation. The majority opinion isn’t asserting that corporations possess free speech rights for the first time, they assume this to be true based on 20 different past cases. By framing the case on a first amendment violation, the majority opinion can remove the discussion of corruption or the undue power that corporations wield. If we accept their premise, then any opposition would be viewed as anti-free speech.
On the other hand, the dissenting opinion questions the premise of the majority’s argument by invoking an originalist interpretation of the constitution. These justices interpret the constitution through the lens of the framers and how they viewed corporations. The framers had little trouble in distinguishing corporations and people, especially since the framers saw corporations as quasi public entities working to serve society. It was understood that corporations possess immense power to influence the government and thus they needed to be regulated, not given constitutional protections. Another great argument presented against the majority was stressing the implications of the majority’s ruling in the case. Would multinational corporations be given the same first amendment rights to exert influence on our government and elected officials? If corporations have free speech why not extend their rights to include the right to vote as well; after all voting is a form of speech. These implications and unanswered questions frame the ruling of the case as a short sighted decision; freely handing out rights to corporate entities.
LikeLike
The majority’s best arguments are banning certain stages of speech and the confusion of the media exemption. Section 441b prohibits all corporations from using money as political speech for 30 or 60 days before an election. This is a ban on a particular method of expressing speech for a specific time. Even though it’s tailored to a specific group, it’s still an infringement on speech. Justice Kennedy also mentions the double standard applied to media corporations. They use a corporate model, accumulate large amounts of wealth, are tied to multi-million dollar business, but are somehow can’t exert the same influence a non-profit or for-profit corporation can. If proponents of this exemption used the freedom of the press argument, they would have to have some agreement with Justice Kennedy. The dissent’s best case is the break down of corporations vs. natural people. The majority is fine with affirming the right to free speech of corporations but not other rights endowed to natural people. If the distinction between the two is minimal or non-existent, then why not apply the majorities logic the 2nd,3rd,4th, or 5th amendment to corporations. Even in the Framer’s time, corporations, while different from today’s model, were seen as a separate entity within the limits of regulation and outside the limits of the Constitution. While the majority is right on Section 441b banning speech, it creates inconsistencies when applied to corporations.
LikeLike
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision led to the Supreme Court determining that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, because doing so would violate the First Amendment. The outcomes of this case concluded with various arguments for both sides that led to much dissent. The majority argued that the First Amendment protection extends to corporations, and ultimately political speech is necessary to a democracy. “The First Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office” hence why speech of any sort shall be protected by all means. On the flip side with the, particularly with Justice Stevens argument, he states that corporations are not members of society therefore concluding that they should not be protected by the First Amendment. “In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framers believed “the freedom of speech” would extend equally to all corporate speakers.” Stevens essentially is revealing the fact that the decision of the case is dissonant because the framers of our constitution would have not been able to foresee corporate participation in elections.
LikeLike
The strongest argument of the majority opinion is bringing up that media corporations were exempt from the §441b’s ban. It shows the complications within the extent of the law because media corporations are still corporations with a vast amount of wealth. There are also ambiguous rulings of whether a corporation should be regarded as individual persons in the eyes of the law or even distinguishing between different types of corporations. However, the dissenting opinion had a very solid response because they acknowledged and asserted that corporations are not and should not be treated, as individual people. The dissenting piece explicitly explains why they shouldn’t enjoy the same protections as people and I agree. It is also concerning to me that the court had the ability to protect corporations in this case but social media and technology companies can still legally get away with online censorship and tracking user information because they’re private companies.
LikeLike
Money and politics have always controlled this country. Citizen United case demonstrates the amount of how badly corporate is involved in politics. Congress had passed numerous legislation to limit campaign spending from corporations. FEC ensures that candidates have imitations on campaign spending. Citizens United released a film that was very critical of Hillary Clinton. The movie could be considered as “electioneering communications”, however, the argument was that preventing this film being released violated the First Amendment. Citizens United claimed that film wasn’t clearly for or against a candidate. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Therefore, the majority ruled for Citizens United. They argued that the Freedom Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting money spent by corporations, labor unions, and other associations, on political campaigns. Justice Kennedy wrote ” if the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, for simply engaging in political speech” which basically freed corporations and unions to spend as much money as they want to elect for defeat candidates as long as they don’t directly contribute. The First Amendment also protects associations of individuals and not just individual speakers. The dissenting warned that the court’s ruling threatened ” to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation”. Justice Stevens argued that the Court continuously denies Congress the power to safeguard against the improper use of money is denying the nation its protection. Not only that, but there’s also a possibility of corruption as contributors might gain political excess through expenditures.
LikeLike
Some strong arguments made by the Dissent is that there is a distinction from corporation and the people. Corporations do not represent the people and hold no values or beliefs so they cannot not vote or run for office. There is a reason why Congress placed a special limitation in 1907, and that was to protect people from corporations who may be corrupted and abuse their power especially during the electoral processes. Money holds great power which common people don’t have and is the reason why voting is so important.
Some arguments made by the Majority is that Congress can’t pass laws that go against the 1st Amendment, “Free Speech.” This is because free speech is essential for democracy which allows civic discourse among the people and only the people to interpret what is spread online, not the government. The they argue that PACs are a separate association from the corporation which have more “burdensome” regulations to follow.
LikeLike
The Citizens United case addresses the limits placed on corporations funding an electoral candidate under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. This act prohibits corporations from use treasury funds to promote a candidate. It also prohibits corporations from running ads within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Citizens United wanted to run an ad for Hillary within 30 days of the primary election and this would’ve violated the Act. They claimed that the act was unconstitutional.
Majority of the Court ruled that the section 441b of the Act which put prohibitions on corporate independent expenditures was indeed unconstitutional. The majority argued that this section violated the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. They argued that the ads were a form of speech and it cannot be prohibited by Congress just because it was coming from a corporation. Justice Kennedy who wrote on behalf of the majority stated that corporations have the same right to the first amendment as individuals. If an individuals right to freedom of speech cannot be prohibited, then neither should a corporation’s.
Justice Stevens dissented, joined with Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. Justice Stevens disagreed with the Court that section 441b went against the first amendment. Stevens argued that corporations should not be viewed on the same level as individuals. Corporations are separate entities because they are made up of people who are not even eligible to vote. Justice Stevens also stated that one of Congress’ motives with the act was to avoid corruption. Based on the ruling in Burroughs v. U.S., Congress has the right to prevent the improper use of money to influence an election. By placing limitations on how much corporations can spend on a candidate, Congress is preventing corporations from corrupting the election process.
LikeLike
The strongest argument for the Citizens United decision is that newspapers and media entities are corporations that sometimes spin information to tell the story they want to be told, thereby acknowledging that corporations exercise free speech, yet Congress does not restrict what the companies can produce. Movies executives spend millions of dollars to produce movies. The downside of Citizens United means the wealthiest people in the country can flood airwaves with ads that support their agenda ex: gun rights advocates and planned parenthood donors. These organizations sometimes skew facts or intentionally exclude certain facts to forward their own agendas. Big money in politics can be a curse and a blessing depending on the politics at the time.
LikeLike
The strongest argument on the majority opinion in Citizens United is that “…The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. …The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations”(Citizens United Majority, 2;4). Justice Kennedy and the majority of those who were in an argument with the opinion of the court believed that regardless of if this was about a corporation or not. He also uses precedents to establish that corporations had always been granted first amendment protections. The strong argument on the dissenting argument is that Justice Stevens argued that the founding fathers did not intend on corporations being guaranteed first amendment protection. “The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind”(Citizens United Dissent, 4). Another strong argument by the dissenter is the belief that the Supreme Court is losing the respect from the public by engaging in issues of super PAC and corruption. Justice Stevens writes, “Virtually every one of its arguments was made and rejected in those cases, and the majority opinion is essentially an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents. The only relevant thing that has changed since Austin and McConnell is the composition of this Court”(Citizens United Dissent, 2). With the Supreme Court engaging and using their political power to rule on this case in favor of the corporations instead of the people, it effectively presents themselves more negatively towards the general public.
LikeLike
The majority opinion argues that the prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is a ban on speech. If the Court decided that the restrictions were valid, there would be issues with government restricting speech in the future. “Government could repress speech by ‘attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas,’ for ‘effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others.’” The Court did not want to overstep boundaries with freedom of speech, as a ruling that advocated for the restrictions could potentially result in further restrictions on speech. Democracy relies on speech and it holds the government accountable. Justice Kennedy was, I believe, particularly convincing in that point. Speech is essential for democracy and democracy cannot be hindered; thus speech cannot be hindered.
The dissent stresses the significant distinction between corporate and human speakers. The amount of resources from corporations cannot compare to an individual/human speaker. Corporate identity has its power, resources, etc., that are incomparable than an individual identity. Thus, the two cannot be conflated, “corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings” but they are not who the Constitution is meant to protect.
LikeLike