Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission

The main constitutional question within the case of Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 regarded whether sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act infringed upon the free speech clause granted to the people through the First Amendment. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) instituted in 2002 controlled how political campaigns could be financed. The act criminalized ads produced by corporations that expressly advocate for or against candidates within sixty days of general elections and thirty days of primary elections. A claim was made that in preventing funding of political campaigning by certain corporations, the government was essentially preventing them from demonstrating free political speech and breaching

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was a 5-4 decision divided along liberal and conservative lines. Shane McCutcheon is a businessman from Alabama who donated thousands of dollars to various Republican committees and candidates. If he donated any more, he would violate the limit to aggregate contributions established in the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The aggregate limit capped the amount of money an individual could donate to candidates and committees per two year election cycle at 123,000. McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee sued the Federal Election Commission, which enforced campaign finance regulations, arguing that the aggregate contribution limit violated the First Amendment

One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by candidates, donated by multi-million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to Supreme Court cases within the past half-century, the case suggests that

When President Barack Obama charged on the Supreme Court in 2010 during the State of the Union, he said that the Supreme Court had allowed corporations to spend vast amounts of money in federal elections. To this claim, Justice Alito replied “simply not true”. In a way Justice Alito was right because the case Citizens United did not change the amount of money that corporations can spend in federal elections. The Supreme Court simply modified the timeframe in which corporations could spend their wealth to support political candidates. In simple words, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend money promoting a candidate all the way through the day of the

In 2012, in an effort to win reelection as President of the United States, Barack Obama raised $1072.6 million dollars. $78.8 million of it was raised by the Priorities USA Action Super PAC. (Ashkenas, Ericson, Parlapiano, and Willis, 2012) PACs or Political Action Committees are groups formed in order to raise and spend money for a political candidate. PACs began in 1944 and had strict guidelines set by the Federal Election Committee in which an individual could only donate $2,500 to a PAC and companies were not allowed to donate money. This changed in 2010 with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case which indirectly led to the formation of Super PACs which allowed for unlimited spending and unlimited donations from individuals or corporations to political

Under the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC the supreme court ruled that corporations as an entity were considered people giving them the right to spend money to spread their options and beliefs. This case has been openly questioned in the media, among many members of the country and the government alike. It is still in effect today and the opinion has not changed by the supreme court. With corporations being considered people it brings into question what or who else could be considered person under US law. One example of a group that could benefit from being considered persons are animals. Animals are mistreated everyday and if they had the rights of people then this could be different. Every argument or discussion has two sides, in this case the two sides are that animals should be considered persons and the other is that they should not be considered persons. Both sides have their merits and their faults.

The Supreme Court Case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) greatly affected the future of American politics and government and was a major topic of discussion for many years. The case was initially argued on March 24, 2009 and it was reargued on September 9, 2009. Eventually, the Supreme Court decided on a resolution regarding the issues being argued in this case on January 21, 2010 under Roberts court. To begin with, the FEC is a bipartisan, six-member group who enforce and regulate the campaign finance laws, in addition to enforcing obedience with their requirements. It was first created by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which reformed campaign finances. Furthermore, Citizens United v. FEC dealt with the regulation

These laws were the perfect way for the state to make sure that the system is stable in the future. Just recently on April 2nd, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down the overall cap on monetary political donations. This is a classic case of the state adopting policies to ensure the stability of the system. Coping the scheme of citizens united the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allows an individual to donate as much money as they please to federal candidates in a two year election cycle. Although federal law bans direct contributions to campaigners by corporations and business, super pacs allow money to get to the politicians without direct contact. But this law still allows wealthy individuals to support the candidates that will represent their needs and wants in the national government. This creates an unfair system aimed at helping the elites because they will have more money to donate therefore will have more of the campaigners attention. Justice Breyer realized the importance of this decision being turned down and was recorded writing “Where enough money calls the tune,” he wrote, “the general public will not be heard.” (New York Times).

FEC) limiting campaign spending on the basis that PACs (generated by corporations) where in fact individuals in their own right. As such, all individuals/citizens of the US have a right to spend their money as they see fit, whether that is making a political speech by funding certain campaigns. Therefore, forbidding corporate spending on elections is a clear limitation on freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Some argue that not limiting the amount of money into politics will inevitably lead to corruption. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not built to protect man against himself but against, the government he created. This topic also brings to light the dilemma over what we, (the people and government), consider a citizen. Webster’s dictionary defines determines that the legal definition of a citizen is “1: a native or naturalized individual who owes allegiance to a government (as of a state or nation) and is entitled to the enjoyment of governmental protection and to the exercise of civil rights” and “2: a resident of a town or state who is also a U.S. native or was naturalized in the U.S.” Based on what a corporation is in that definition; a corporation does appear to meet all the requirements: it is considered an entity in itself that can indeed be based in the US, but does it pledge an alliance to our government? Can a corporation

It is unsensible to believe that even the upper crest of the US financially can keep up with a corporation. Therefore receiving donations from corporations is the candidate's main goal, while ignoring the many small donors that truly represent America’s views. While there is no solid proof of corporations influencing candidates decisions thee have been sketchy moment in which corporations money influencing candidates decisions have been suspected. In 2000 when Bush was running for president an energy company based in Houston, Enron donated a substantial amount of money to Bush. They donated 2.5 million making them the highest donating energy company and the 36th highest corporate donator. After Bush was elected he passed 6 bills extremely beneficial for Enron that multiplied their revenue by nearly three times. In all Corporations donating limitless to candidates forces a candidate to pass bills beneficial for their donors and not the majority of people. This needs to stop or the purity of America’s political system goes down the

Furthermore, they must disclose that the candidate of which the advertising is about does not condone the message ("Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission."). The Supreme Court struck down the law, thus essentially allowing unlimited funding of candidates from corporations. The unrestricted access that campaigns have when funding grants legal impairment of those who are unable to donate money as a corporation would, thus making the votes of the people matter less.

No one knows how much of that money came from corporate treasures. The courts five to four decision said that is it OK for corporations and labor unions to spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate. The courts decision also stated that the first amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

In the land of politics, the more money that one has is the better. This is no exception when it comes to campaigns and elections. The goal of any political campaign is to get their nominee the votes they need to win. Whether this is through negative or positive campaign tactics, one thing can fuel a campaigns success is money. Money in a campaign means that more advertising can be bought. This is the perfect way to get the candidate seen by the public and is also a way to paint a negative picture of the other candidate. However, questions can be raised where does the money that funds campaigns or campaign advertisement come from, should there be regulations imposed to monitor where it comes from and what part of the campaign does this money fund? Questions like these and more were answered in the Supreme Court Case Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commissions and many were not happy about this ruling.

From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700’s you had to be a white male landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has over the election process and politicians. While money has it’s

It is difficult to be a politician in the United States today without accepting money from corporate interest. Democrats and Republicans accept money from groups like wall street, lobbyists, giant corporation, and the oil industry. These two parties claim that this money doesn't affect their policies or votes. A group named Wolf Pac was formed by citizens that believe this type of exchange is considered legal bribery. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) On January 21st, 2010 the United States supreme court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC authorized this type of exchange. (The New American. 31.15 Aug. 3, 2015) Therefore, both parties can accept unregulated money and support from huge corporations and special interest in the form of Super Pacs. The CEO’s of these corporations that donate to candidates believe their corporations are individuals, and the money they donate is their freedom of speech.