What Makes the Supreme Court’s Decision in Citizens United Versus the Federal Election Commission a Controversial Decision

1343 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The role of the media in political campaigns

Introduction In the wake of 2008, a non-profit oriented organization (Citizens United), composed and produced a documentary movie known as “Hillary: The Movie.” The documentary criticized the suitability and competency of Hilary Clinton (the senator at that particular period) to run as a presidential candidate. The organization aimed at distributing the documentary via different outlets that included theaters and Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs). Later on, the corporation realized that in order to reach a large public audience, it needed to avail the documentary using the video-on-demand portal. The initial steps of public awareness concerning the documentary involved the adoption of promotional services. To effectively and efficiently promote the movie, the corporation resorted to advertisements using radio broadcast and cable television services. Of course, to effectively achieve the desired public awareness of the movie, the organization needed a substantial financial input in the advertisements and distribution of the movie through the video-on-demand portal. It is from this venture the Citizens United overstepped the federal law requirements. The controversy arose when the corporation decided to use the general treasury finances in funding the project. The corporation could not do any advertisements without these funds. On the other hand, the federal law prescribes the actions of any organization to spend general treasury finances on political, opinionated expenditures. The federal law exerts this mandate via the revised article 203 of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Also, the extent of the prohibition includes the spending of corporation’s treasury funds on a speech that aims at either promoting or downgradi... ... middle of paper ... ...tution based on a particular case. The court discovered the necessity to scrutinize the restrictions on independent corporate expenditure on a political statement. Finally, it stated that the suppression of independent corporate expenditure consequently suppressed the political statement. In the analysis conducted by the court, the court identified that; before Austin, the First Constitutional Amendment outlined the statute’s providence on corporations. Additionally, the amendment contextualized the exceeding and limitations of the free political communication. Unto Austin, the court found compelling evidence of anti distortion that necessitated the interdiction of corporate expenditures on independent elections. The court justified its actions because corporate organizations amass wealth which when channelled to independent expenditure may yield corrosive impacts

Show More
Related

  • Citizens United v. FEC: United We Stand, Corporations and All

    1052 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...nsible for the content of this advertising.” Citizens United, aware that the airing of Hillary during the 2008 primaries would be illegal, tried to obtain an injunction to preclude the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the McCain-Feingold Act, claiming that sections 201, 203, and 311 of the law violated the First Amendment. The Federal Election Commission, despite Citizens United’s efforts, held that broadcast of Hillary would violate the McCain-Feingold Act and proceeded to ban the film from airing on television. Citizens United, seeking injunctive relief, decided to bring its case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. However, upon discovering that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had denied its application, Citizens United decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Watergate

    555 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Understanding the Controversies of the US Constitution

    1132 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Constitution of the United States is one of the most iconic and important documents of all time. However, when it was first generated, its writing and ratification caused some major concerns. The purpose of the Constitution was to address the great number of issues of a new nation. To be more specific, the Constitution was meant to resolve the political, economic, and social problems of the country. Nevertheless, the document spurred much discussion and concern over people’s rights, the economy, and political corruption.

    Read More

  • Soft Moneys Elimination From Governmental Campaigns

    1411 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Super Pacs

    822 Words  | 2 Pages

    The past few years, I’ve taken an interest into our constitution. As a result of this interest, I would at times sift through interesting Supreme Court cases. Tinker v. Des Moines and Johnson v. Texas would, to some, conflict with cases like Schenck v. United States. The line drawn on the issue of free speech to others may be blurry, but to me, it has always been crystal clear. So when Super PACs, Political Action Committees that can donate unlimited funds to an independent cause, arose, I concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to protect free speech. To most it seems, Super PACs are just evil PACs, and they, unlike regular PACs, ruin elections. They really only differ by their method, however, when discussing the movement of money. Super PACs are run “independently”, and PACs are usually partisan.

    Read More

  • The Privileged Position of Business

    548 Words  | 2 Pages

    in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Campaign Finance

    353 Words  | 1 Pages

    Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing

    Read More

  • An Analysis of the Rhetorical Elements of Political Campaign Advertisements

    1054 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political campaign commercials of the 2008 presidential election reveals the different informal fallacies utilized to gain support for one of the candidates or misguide the public about the opposing candidate.

    Read More

  • Campaign Finance Reform

    2679 Words  | 6 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The First Amendment and Conservative Rulings of the Supreme Court

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    The First Amendment and Conservative Rulings of the Supreme Court The authors of the Constitution of the United States created a magnificent list of liberties which were, at the time ascribed, to most people belonging to the United States. The main author, James Madison, transported the previous ideas of fundamental liberties from the great libertarians around the world, such as John Lilburne, John Locke, William Walwyn and John Milton. Madison and other previous libertarians of his time were transposed into seventeen different rights which were to be secured to all those in the United States. These seventeen civil liberties were compressed into ten different groupings which were designated as the "Bill of Rights."

    Read More

  • The Ashwander Rules: A Bad Decision Making System

    3953 Words  | 8 Pages

    Their goal was to cast a shadow over this candidate and place her in the negative views of the electorate. In 2008, Citizens United completed the production of this documentary and they set out to air it on broadcast television (Sitaraman, 2014). As Citizens United was well aware, doing this within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary violates the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. This set into motion the historical case Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 2010. Before the Supreme Court, this case was compared to the precedent set in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which was dealing with a similar issue. It was expected of the Court to rule on the narrowly formed question originally presented, could this conservative lobbyist group, Citizens United, show their film? Citizens United argued that Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates the First Amendment and when applied to their documentary and its related advertisements, and the sections 201 and 203 were also unconstitutional when applied to the circumstances (Sitaraman, 2014). The United States District Court denied their order. Section 203 was not unconstitutional. The District Court also held that The Movie was not directly degrading towards Clinton

    Read More

  • The Controversy of the Second Amendment of the Constitution

    997 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Second Amendment to the Constitution(Second Amendment) of the United States of America(USA) is one of the most controversial. The Second Amendment specifically grants that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Kenneth Vogel's Big Money

    1391 Words  | 3 Pages

    December of 2010, in a five to four vote, it was decided that corporate funding of independants in in elections was protected under the first Amendment. This opened the floodgate for the 2012 elections as the candidates took to many platforms to raise money for their campaigns. Mitt Romney along with the help of Spencer Zwick raised 6.5 million dollars simply through a call-a-thon. The secret weapon in this call-a-thon was a program called ComMITT. This program allowed the user to solicit donations from contacts in their email, and online social networking sites. Any donation made fed directly back into the campaign, giving a real-time tally of pledges. With all of this information, one can make a decision for or against campaign finance contributions. Personally, I have conflicting feelings about limitations on campaign finance. I feel as though there should not be a limit for campaign finance contributions, but there should be more qualifications for becoming president. I do not believe there should be a limit on campaign finance because technically it is covered under freedom of speech. It is covered under freedom of speech. This is because giving money is showing

    Read More

  • Campaign Financing

    2443 Words  | 5 Pages

    Mann, Thomas E. "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Is an Egregious Exercise of Judicial Activism." Brookings Institute. 26 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Mar. 2011.

    Read More

  • Should Campaign Funding be Limited?

    1249 Words  | 3 Pages

    The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.

    Read More

More about What Makes the Supreme Court’s Decision in Citizens United Versus the Federal Election Commission a Controversial Decision

Open Document