Was the Supreme Courts Ruling of Citizens United V. Fec

Was the Supreme Courts ruling of Citizens United V. FEC

a bad one? - Pro

The January 2010 supreme court ruling of Citizens United V. FEC has opened up the flood gates for unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns. The 5-4 court decision has "unleashed a torrent of corporate and union cash into the political realm, and transform how campaigns for presidents, and congress are fought in the upcoming years."(Tedford, Deborah. "Supreme Court Rips Up Campaign Finance Laws."). Not only will this ruling allow corporations to flood political campaigns, but it will also unfairly influence the outcomes of upcoming elections. The ruling of Citizens United V. FEC will have a major impact on many elections to come. It is no secret that in our society and many other capitalist societies that money can buy you power. If the system continues to allow these big corporations to bombard campaigns with endless funds they will soon begin to control the way our government functions. The politicians that are being funded by these corporations will soon lose interest in the needs and issues that concern the people; they will become more concerned with addressing the issues and wishes of the corporations that fund them. Before we know it, the United States government will no longer be the democracy we've come to know and appreciate, but a mere reflection of the greedy needs and concerns of big time corporations.

Citizens United V. FEC is a landmark supreme court case that has allowed private corporations to fund political campaigns. Their decision was based on the first amendments right to free speech. Citizens United a non -profit organization group that advocates for conservatives

Guzman 2

ideals and candidates, wanted to air a 90 minute documentary that narrates Hillary Clintons 30 years in public life through a conservative's perspective. Clintons' life was being narrated through various interviews and news clips. This documentary received backlash when it was advertised throughout the same month of the primaries without disclaimers or disclosure of donors. The FEC barred the ads without the disclaimers. Soon after, Citizens United filed a suit against the FEC (Federal Election Committee). The case presented the question: "Do campaign finance restrictions on corporate spending apply to Citizen United's plan to run advertisement for anti-Hillary Clinton documentary at the peak of her 2008 presidential run?" (2010 Citizens United V. FEC). The 5-4 majority of the supreme court found "no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers, the court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations." (Justice Anthony Kennedy, 2010 Citizens United V. FEC). When making this decision the supreme court majority completely over looked the McCain- Feingold Act, which prohibits "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or unions from being broadcasted or transmitted 30 days before a presidential primary, and 60 days before the general election. Although the documentary and advertisements did not directly express the defeat of a candidate, and did not use the words "vote for, or vote against". The words "vote for" and "vote against" which are "expressed terms that advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office."(Leffel, Michael D. "A More Sensible Approach to Regulating Independent

Guzman 3

 Expenditures: Defending the Constitutionality of the FEC's New Express  Advocacy Standard."). Although it did not violate the "express advocacy" standard established by Buckley v. Valeo, it could of have had an impact on the primaries outcome. Because the airing of the documentary was so close to the primary elections, the perspectives that were presented favored one specific group. Therefore it only brought light upon what conservatives thought about Hillary Clinton, ultimately having the power to persuade, or change the publics opinion. The "express advocacy" standard is suppose to protect free speech, instead it creates a loop hole for different presidential campaign tactics. The journal A More Sensible Approach to Regulating Independent Expenditures:Defending the Constitutionality of The FEC's New Express Advocacy Standard, in the Michigan Law Review, by Michael D. Leffel displays an example of the loop holes that the "express advocacy" standard opens up for corporation funding in political campaigns.

" In the first example, the National Rifle Association runs an advertisement on November 2nd, three days before the general election. The television screen opens with a big caption "Don't let Bill do it to us again !".... the presidents campaign tactic ends with a rousing message "We have the right to protect ourselves. We have an opportunity three days from now to stop Bill Clinton from taking them away from us." The second hypothetical advertisement is exactly the same , but ends instead with the message " Vote Against Bill Clinton.""

Both the examples that were given contained the same message. The advertisements were trying to broadcast the message to vote against Bill Clinton. However, because the last message ended with "Vote Against Bill Clinton" is expresses advocacy of the defeat of Bill Clinton. The first example did not contains the words "vote for" or "vote against", therefore it is considered to be protected under the fist amendment right of free speech. It is very clear that both advertisements expressed the defeat of presidential candidate Bill Clinton , if anything the first advertisement

Guzman 4

expressed more hostility towards presidential candidate Bill Clinton, it gives the people more information on why they should vote against the candidate. The ending of the first advertisement advises the public to protect themselves, that they have the "right to", possibly suggesting that Bill Clintons agenda is aiming to remove the peoples right to bear arms. Information such as this is given to the public in order to infuriate them, and make them go against the candidate. The only difference between the first advertisement and the second advertisement, is that the second advertisement is very blunt and straight forward when telling the