The stakeholders in this policy area, based on the amicus briefs filed in the Citizens United case and frequent litigants in other similar cases, include politicians, candidates for political office, political action committees, civil rights organizations, nonprofit and legal organizations, agents of the federal government, and political scientists. The Federal Elections Commission is a particularly typical litigant in this policy area, petitioning in a manner that would likely call for an overturning of the precedent in Citizens United. A number of politicians, both Democratic and Republican, also filed amicus briefs in favor of the appellee, the Federal Election Commission, making it probable that these and other politicians would be in favor of overturning the precedent set in Citizens United. Few politicians …show more content…
Many liberal-leaning and nonprofit organizations, such as the Democratic National Convention and the Sunlight Foundation, are likely to work in favor of overturning the precedent. In contrast, conservative organizations such as the National Rifle Association and the Cato Institute are more supportive of the precedent established in Citizens United, as are religiously-based political organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund and the Fidelis Center. Based on the amicus briefs filed in the case, many organizations concerned with free speech rights would also be in favor of maintaining the precedent in Citizens United, and political scientists can be found on both sides of the issue. (SCOTUSblog). The Supreme Court in Citizens United essentially made legal all campaign spending by corporations on the basis that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals, and campaign spending is a form of speech. In his partial dissent in Citizens United, Justice Stevens argues against this legal rule, stating, “Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, despite being backed by 75 percent of House Republicans, and 41 percent of Senate Republicans, caused immense controversy in Washington. Senator James Buckley sued the secretary of the senate Frances Valeo on the Constitutionality of FECA. In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United.
This was upheld in two Supreme Court cases. In Buckley v. Veleo, the Supreme Court established that individuals cannot be barred from donating because it is protected speech. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court established that corporations cannot be barred from donating. These justify the activities of PACs because it is the individual rights of the people to have freedom of speech.
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
Speechnow.org v. FEC brings out a few significant keys. First, the freedom of speech and the right to privacy are the regarded as high standing rulings in America. Those things have the ability to be corrupted, but, ultimately, the court’s will leave it is up to the citizens of the United States to make those decisions for themselves. Also, another significant factor is campaign finance is an ever-changing topic that has loopholes that need to be addressed on a case-to-case basis.
First, the Court reiterated its belief that political speech with regard to campaign spending is undoubtedly protected by the First Amendment’s “Free Expression” clause. Next, the Court de-linked the connection between the spending of money and speech, asserting that spending money to further political communications is an integral component of protected speech. Taking into account the fact that political campaigns are indeed expensive to run — and indeed, are even more costly in today’s day in age than the 1970s, during which the Court’s verdict was rendered — and blocking contributions would hinder expression with regards to campaigns, the Court held that political contributions constitute speech. In summation, the Court felt that the institutional of political contribution limits was in accordance with the Constitution, but expenditure restrictions for corporations violated the First Amendment, and as such, were nixed by the Supreme Court’s decision in the
The right to free exercise of religion is stated in the First Amendment and was created in 18783. This clause would be mostly likely used by religion based corporations as they can dictate what insurance can cover among other subjects. Citizens United was mainly about companies making unlimited donations to indecent expenditures in political races. The reason Citizens United is related to the Hobby Lobby case is that it gave the idea that corporations are considered people which could be sued as a precedent to the Hobby Lobby case.
Supreme Court held that the BCRA and the Federal Election Commission had violated Citizens United’s First Amendment rights on the basis that, “...Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity” (558 U.S. 310, at 365). Kennedy also argued that, “... overruling Austin ‘effectively invalidate[s] not only BCRA Section 203, but also 2 U. S. C. 441b’s prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds for express advocacy.’” This majority was also comprised of Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. A second decision that upheld the constitutionality of sections 201 and 311 saw Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in the majority (Oyez). The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) decision in question, which determined that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals, saw the Supreme Court overturning precedents in two prior cases: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. the Federal Election Commission (2003). The Austin decision determined that corporate entities were not entitled to the same free speech protections as are individuals, and the McConnell decision held this with an added restriction on electioneering communication (558 U.S. 310, at
End Citizens United (EDU) is committed to seeing that every citizen has an equal say in the election of its government officials. Strong advocates of the reversal of the 2010 Supreme Court decision that its group was named for; this organization believes that our current campaign finance system favors the rich and powerful and works against the everyday American. Since this ruling, powerful players such as large corporation and the super rich can now funnel unlimited resources to political campaigns potentially giving them enormous sway in their outcome.
Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
The most powerful jurists in the country cannot do math. In March 2018, when the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a landmark case that would determine the future of partisan gerrymandering, its members were reluctant to consider statistical evidence seriously.
These limitations warrant a broader investigation into other politicized issues. The Supreme Court highly politicized the two issues we focus on, with abortion arguably being the most politicized topic in our country, so our research cannot extend to all Supreme Court issues, especially those which are not as politically polarizing. However, it is reasonable to expect that other high profile issues, such as the death penalty or same-sex marriage, have similar results to what we discovered for abortion and affirmative action. A further investigation into which issues prompt the most media coverage and hearing comments compared to abortion and affirmative action may show the particular importance of these two issues, especially abortion, in politics, the judiciary, and
These pluralistic interest groups are free to operate and lobby in the political arena, fighting against the majority and other competing factions for voice in Congress. With the influence of multiple factions operating throughout the political system, a balance of power is created (Kernell 2000, 429). This is much like the international theory of sovereign states balancing each other’s power to create a political system that focuses on stability, yet is always in a constant flux of power. With this in mind, special interest groups are constantly contending for power by raising money, campaigning, and lobbying in Congress. When a special interest group is threatened by a competing policy, the group will organize efforts to balance, or transcend the power of the competing group.
Through the history of the United States there has been court cases and other choices that the government took and did not reflect what the United States constitution and Bill of Rights say and stand for. The U.S. Government has not be true to their own Constitution and Bill of Rights. In the court cases Schenck v. U.S. , Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. U.S the U.S. Government has disrespected and not reflected the Constitution and Bill of Rights.