What are the strongest arguments for and against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United? (Describe at least one on either side)
Week 15: Voting, Elections, and Campaign Finance
Published
What are the strongest arguments for and against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United? (Describe at least one on either side)
Constitutional Law (Powers) Spring 2019 
Often cited as the most contrevisonal decisions by the modern-day Supreme Court,Citizens United shaped more than campaigning fiance. One of the arguments against Citizens United , that it is using the first amendment to benefit the few elite rather than population as a whole. Many liberals saw the ruling as a way to write in capitalism into the constitution through speech. While on the other hand, the strongest argument in support of the Citizens United decision is that it is simply protecting political speech. Much like the court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio, that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg free speech rights, donating money to a campaign is one’s way of voicing their opinion to a campaign.
LikeLike
Thanks Sarah… So is money speech? BIG QUESTION. We’ll try address some of it in class
LikeLike
Campaign financing has been a hot buttoned issue for many Americans who see monetary resources as a means of controlling the government. Donor’s have had a hand in supporting candidates running for office across the country on the basis of the first amendment. As it indicates in the debate and said by moderator Ronald K.L.Collins many liberals see Citizens United as Lochnerism using the constitution as tool for the privileged few. The debate stems from the protection of political speech and whether it is a guise for influencing policy through donations. Both Floyd Abrams and Alan B. Morrison support there positions virtuously.
Abrams makes the argument for the protection of freedom of speech referring to the first amendment many times and explaining instances where freedom of speech was protected. He makes mentions of the protection of Nazi’s to march, the releasing of pornography and of videos indicating the torture/killing of animals. The idea is to assure the public that funding your candidate is the supportive act that cannot be limited by the government, hence protecting your liberty. Morrison goes in explaining that the movie cannot be protected under because unlike advertisements or other forms of expression, the movie is longer than normal ads. The expenditure was purposely meant to undercut one’s candidate opponent without having a direct ties to the to the candidate they support.
The strongest argument presented is the freedom of speech as a means to explore ones preference without having to answer for your choice. If these provisions were taken away then any form of support to any belligerent can be questioned and/or denied violating civil liberties. The court should have noted direct/ indirect campaign fiances that sway votes to candidates, but those were not mentioned in the debate. Continually it has been proven that campaign donations have garnered votes for candidates which leads to policy changes that are convenient for the benefactors. Although not part of the debate the government must look at all candidates and see how their track record on laws has benefited their donors creating conflicts of interest.
LikeLike
What are the strongest arguments for and against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United?
There is one primal argument advocating for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC: the formidable First Amendment. With the notorious case of Citizens United v. FEC the First Amendment became the center of controversy in social and cultural wars that exist within this nation. The foundation of the Supreme Court’s ruling simply depends on the idea that the Constitution defends and protects the right to engage in free speech. Yet, not just any speech but more specifically political speech. Therefore, unions and corporations could spend their money endorsing candidates. In other words, these unions and/or corporations are engaging in their constitution given right to express themselves freely. Just because they are endorsing candidates by “shaming” the opponent or rather by depicting images of why the other candidate may not be “fit” or “qualified” to hold that elected position should not be limited. Or better yet, it should not be seen as a crime.
The opposing argument questions the definition of a corporation. In other words, can these corporations be protected under the umbrella of the First Amendment? Corporations, put simply, are legal entities that exist independently of the people who own them. Yes, it is people who run these corporations but their individual motivation are inferior to those of the corporations. Therefore, if they speak against such corporations they will be met with drastic consequences.
If we take the literal definition of Democracy, it means that a nation is run by the people. Despite this, corporations argue that they should be given the same First Amendment rights. By using this strategy, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. FEC concluded that it is unconstitutional to impose any limits on how much money corporations can spend influencing elections. This was further cemented by the fact that such limit would violate the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech.
Yes, free speech is paramount to an effective democracy, but it will not be effective when there is economic inequality within the nation. The few controlling the many; seems like a perpetuating theme throughout centuries.
LikeLike
This is great, Albi – thanks. Your last paragraph is particularly interesting, and I’ll bring it up, for sure, in class.
LikeLike
The strongest argument for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United is that the First Amendment protects speech and precedent demonstrate that political speech (which the film involved in the case is seen as) is one of the most important types of speech to protect. In fact, there is also precedent protecting the rights of corporations like Citizens United under the First Amendment making the protections granted by the ruling nothing completely new. The real criticism of the case and its ruling is cemented in strong partisan views as people hoped to limit speech they disliked, considered unfavorable or potentially harmful to their favored political candidate. As Abrams mentioned, none of his liberal friends had much to say when the New York Times or George Soros spent large sums of money to help elect Democrats and Progressives. One of the strongest arguments against the Supreme Court’s ruling is on the grounds in which the court could have not argued the case constitutionally. One was that they could have said that the film was not considered a political advertisement because of its length, therefore, making the statute pertaining to political advertisement not applicable. Lastly, it is not unusual to carve out groups or speakers when assessing the constitutionality of speech similar to the limitations that could be imposed on a student running a newspaper at a public school.
-Rumer LeGendre
LikeLike
Well summarized, Rumer. I’ll perhaps try push you in class on which arguments you found convincing or unconvincing. Sounds like the idea that Citizens United constituted “judicial activism” was somewhat persuasive
LikeLike
The strongest arguments for the supreme courts ruling:
-Corporations are made up of a mass group of individuals. American citizens have the right to free speech, so a group of them should too.
-Free speech should not be limited even if it derogatory. Nazis, racists, sexist and other individuals who spout offensive speech yet they still have the right to free speech so why shouldn’t corporations?
–
Strongest arguments against Citizens United
-The statute that exists for political advertising covers air time of 60 seconds, not a full-length movie
-The movie about Hillary Clinton was not an advertisement as people had to go out of their to pay for it.
-Free speech is actually restricted in some instances: prisoners, in general, are limited to what they can read (a specific case was in Pennsylvania they could not read newspapers), prosecutors can’t disclose certain information and students can’t write negative things about their school.
-In supporting a political cause, big corporations can (possibly) have an effect on election outcomes.
LikeLike
Excellent, Sarah-Hannah – I think you’ve hit on the key issues really well here. I will be curious to see how you evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each argument in class
LikeLike
In the Citizens United Debate, there were various points made against and in favor of the Supreme’s Court ruling on this subject. In 2010, the Supreme court had ruled that political spending is a form of free speech that is protected under the First Amendment. The debate revolves around the first amendment and its extent. Abrams made some of the strongest arguments in favor of the supreme courts ruling, he stated that the Citizens United Fund is included as a part of the First Amendment, by being an extension of its protection. Abrams believes that since many Americans have “fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views,” the First Amendment should always be protected to express Americans opinions. He also adds how Obama has claimed that American Constitution “protects the right to engage in free speech” and it does not even ban profanity against the most sacred or traditional beliefs. Abrams continues by the examples that the First Amendment protects speech of Nazis, secret cabinets that are associated with the National Security and etc; so it means this should also be able to protect political spending, as the Supreme Court had ruled.
On the contrary, Morrison is against this Supreme Court ruling towards the Citizen United. Morrison believes that the Congress and States should have power to regulate financing elections, rather than making it an individual choice that is protected by the First Amendment, the way the Supreme Court ruled and Abrams agreed. Morrison’s side of the debate is that the First Amendment has a limit to it. His arguments are that people who work for government are not able to truly use the First Amendment because a person who worked in a District Attorney Office in Los Angeles was fired for being gently direct towards the misuse of the office. In addition to that, he argues that foreigners also are limited to their use of the First Amendment because they “cannot make money contributions that are related with federal/state elections, and independent expenditures.” Morrison continues with adding how students are not able to write what they truly want to write for school newspapers because it must get approved by the school prior to it getting published. So this all goes against the Supreme Court ruling regarding the citizens united and its correlation with the First Amendment’s protection.
LikeLike
Excellent, Britney – thanks. Your posts have been great to read all semester 🙂
LikeLike
In the Debate on Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, both Floyd Abrams and Alan B. Morrison take their stand on the Citizens United film. Floyd Abrams claims that the Citizens United film falls under the first amendment of free speech. He uses President Obama’s statements to the UN, where it was explained that despite the content, it is against the constitution to penalize someone for executing their rights. Later on in the debate, Abrams states that whom had access to the film had to purchase it from a channel rather than having to view it in public television. Abrams made it clear that the film was unproblematic and did not need to be opposed by the Supreme Court. Morrison on the other hand argued that despite the film being broadcasted, there should have been regulations based upon it by the Supreme Court. He brings examples of independent expenditures where U.S citizens are allowed to spend money to promote an election, where as a foreigner would not be without the risk of prosecution. Morrison suggests a more profound idea where he suggests that despite there being free speech due to the first amendment; the Supreme Court placed smaller regulations through institutions to censor free speech. He uses the example of the undergrad student, who is unable to publish whatever he wants in the school newspaper without it being processed by the school first. Though both of the debaters had strong points on their stands, Abrams has a better reasoning of showing why the Supreme Court does not need to rule against Citizens United. Despite Morrison listing many examples of how free speech is limited, it is uncertain if there is a law or rule which protects a candidate from being denounced in regards to elections. So there isn’t any reason for the Supreme Court to intervene.
LikeLike
Well put, Imtiaj – and I’m glad you stuck your neck out here with your own assessment of the arguments. Maybe, however – drawing on your last comment – we should ask whether the Court should be addressing these questions at all? It was the legislature that implemented these regulations on campaign finance which the Court overturned.
LikeLike
The debate surrounding Citizens United is a complex and multifaceted beast, but I’ll highlight a few arguments here. Mr. Collins sets a context for the debate by showing the most simple of the arguments for each side. For the conservative right, the Citizens United decision is an “example of defending a cherished First Amendment right”, and for the more progressive left it is “an example perpetuating a horrific First Amendment law”. Perhaps the most compelling argument from the progressive side from my perspective is that although it is true that money has been deeply involved in the election of the President and legislators, the Decision has lead to a growth in underlying monetary involvement in the selection of Supreme Court Justices. And the most compelling argument on the right would be: there should be no limitation on the freedom of speech. Unfortunately, this argument relies on the belief that corporations should be treated like people which I fundamentally disagree with, however, the importance of the freedom of speech cannot be overstated.
LikeLike
Or, for the left, it’s a “weaponization” of the First Amendment (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html)
I like your nuanced take on the overall arguments here, Adam, but I’ll have to push you in class on the corporate personhood question. We can open up that can of worms now!
LikeLike
There are a number of comprehensive points brought up from both sides of the coin during this debate. In regards to arguments for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, it is oftentimes conservatives that side with this point of view, with their overarching claim that the ruling is yet another example of the protection of political speech. Historically, many landmark cases have involved corporations, so Citizens United is nothing new; rather, corporations have been protected for a long time albeit perhaps not as explicitly. Furthermore, the point that the public doesn’t know where money is going to as a result of this ruling is not so; there are requirements for the public filing and dissemination about information of the people who give money. Ultimately, the issue does not lie with limiting speech; instead, the issue that needs to be addressed is the inequality that plagues this country where there is such economic disparity to the point where corporations giving money is seemingly an issue.
On the flip side, arguments against Citizens United are often put forth by liberals/those left-leaning despite areas of hypocrisy. Many see the ruling as an example of judicial activism and “a naked and unjustified power grab by the Supreme Court.” There were many paths the Supreme Court could have taken instead of what they did, and there are critiques with the majority opinion laid out in this ruling stating that the First Amendment does not allow the government to distinguish among categories of speakers. In critiquing the majority opinion, the hypocrisy that lies in the rulings of previous cases is that the Court has clearly dictated who is or is not protected by the First Amendment. This does not even need to go past a constitutional platform; in the governmental sector, there is an abundance of free speech limitations.
LikeLike
Great comment, Ana – in keeping with your excellent contributions across the semester. I’ll be interested to hear more in class about how you evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these claims
LikeLike
I think Floyd Abrams’ argument for the Supreme courts decision is rather strong. He argues that Americans have been protecting all types of speech so why all of a sudden is there an attack for this court decision. Hate speech has been protected, videos that may contain sensitive materials have been protected, so why are people against giving corporations the right to free speech and expression. Abrams also says that this issue is not new. There have been many cases involving corporations in the past addressing this issue. To be able to use their right to speech corporations need to be able to money. The political ads that they put out need money to be made. They would not be able to express themselves without the use of money. Abrams believes that we should focus more on the issue of equality in the country rather than whether or not corporations should be protected with free speech. Economic legislation should be made so maybe corporations didn’t have as much money to use on political ads, or people on the lower part of the spectrum could have more money to voice their opinions. Corporate freedom of speech should not be the issue at hand here so it should be left alone and the issue of equality should be addressed further.
LikeLike
Thanks, Eric – I know we looked at some of this stuff in the Congress class, but here there is a slightly different debate, including a debate over what proper role the Supreme Court should have. I’m inclined to agree that Abrams had the beating of Morrison in this debate, but I’ll bring in some more counter-arguments in class that might better critique Abrams
LikeLike
I have no strong arguments for Citizens United ruling because I see it as the worst thing to happen to our government. When money = speech, speech is no longer free. Why do you focus so much on corporations? Nowhere in the ruling does it say that “‘corporations are people”, any more than it says that “trade unions are people”. Yet the ruling applies to ALL groups of people (yes, real people). You could have said that the court declared that “unions are people”, but instead, you focus on corporations.
The against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United is if a rich person spends, say $1 million on a political ad, that is untouchable, but it 40 people create an association to pool their money, the exact same ad would be illegal. Don’t you see the problem with that?
LikeLike
Second paragraph – is corrected – Sorry!
To give a stronger understanding in the argument against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United is if a rich person spends, say $1 million on a political ad, that is untouchable, but it 40 people create an association to pool their money, the exact same ad would be illegal. Don’t you see the problem with that?
LikeLike
Abrams who argues in favor of the Citizen’s United mentioned that there were four dissenters all of whom who said if the movie was played before the election it would be considered a criminal act. He mentioned different instances in which the first amendment was protected such as with the speech of Nazi’s or creating movies which are about international torture etc. Thus, political speech is actually the most important form of speech especially speech about who to vote for and against. Additionally, he mentions that in the political campaigns the way to fund ads on tv is to pay for them. Abrams mentions that the movie was meant as an attack for a candidate for presidency. Also he said before he has represented corporations and corporations have received first amendment protection. They have been protected for a long time this isn’t something new. Moreover, he said that in the Citizen’s United case they made it seem like it wasn’t known where the money was coming from however, the law requires the public filing and dissemination of the people who give their money to Super PACs. Overall, he believed that speech shouldn’t limited. Morrison who is arguing against the Citizen’s United decision. He started by saying that they never mentioned how to deal with for-profit corporations. Additionally, he mentioned that the justices pretty much had their minds made up. He mentioned instances where people’s first amendment rights have ben restricted like the district attorney who got fired for saying something or being in the military. Morrison also said that the court said that this was a ban of speech and the corporations couldn’t necessarily make speeches bu they do have committees of political action. He adds the issue at hand is that the producer of the HBO film had to put his own money upfront instead of being funded by Super PACs. He also said that they can’t limit the amount of money that’s given to individuals which is different with political parties because there aren’t any distinctions bout that. He shares his concern about the fact that money facilitating speech in the future.
LikeLike
An argument against the Supreme Court decision would have to do with non-candidate spending being independent. By being independent the Supreme Court thought they were making this spending safe from corruption. However, it did lead to the rise of SuperPACs. SuperPACS can both raise and spend an unlimited amount of money because they are “independent” and don’t directly donate to candidates. They can either act in support of candidate or against a candidate and are essentially working together with candidates, just not directly.
An argument in support of Citizens United would be that it protected and reinforced the First Amendment. Prohibiting people from participating in campaign debates is in violation of the First Amendment which guarantees and protects people’s right of free speech.
As a side note, I remember when we discussed the topic of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is not actually a fire. I can see how this could be brought up when discussing this because when people abuse their free speech, it can lead to harm and violence. Limiting something that is called “free” speech, is difficult to there because where are the lines going to be drawn for what a person can and can’t say.
LikeLike
I’m glad you mentioned Super PACs here, Kevin, as they are very important in these arguments. We’ll discuss further in class
LikeLike
The main argument against the decision comes, generally, from people who feel that large corporations only act in their own disinterest. So the liberals tend to argue that organizations such as Comcast and Verizon have too much voice in deliberations regarding their own regulations due to their outsized ability to spend money. But this belies that for every Comcast and Verizon there is a countering argument from other corporations that are also spending money. And that makes sense, if one realizes that the reason so much money is spent because there is an opposing side also spending money.
The argument for the decision is supporting the ruling itself – that Corporations are representative of people (the shareholders) and as the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition their government for redress is a Constitutionally protected activity, to restrict the ability of a corporation to engage in speech would be to introduce limitations on what form that assembly may take – and that gets to restricting even the lobbyist groups that a specific individual appreciates.
LikeLike
Thanks John – your comments have been excellent all semester.
The first paragraph might strike some people as not altogether comforting, however, because they might ask: OK, but what if there’s not a comparable big corporation to counter the dominant one? A commonly cited example would be environmental policy, where fossil fuel companies generally have more resources than climate activists; or financial regulation, where banks have more resources than your average Joe. Could the problem be that, paradoxically, Citizens United actually *inhibits* free speech, by allowing organizations with more cash to drown out the voices of those without? That, at least, is what John Paul Stevens said in his dissent. We’ll see how convincing this is in class today (maybe it isn’t – I can also think of counter-arguments to this)
LikeLike
A strong argument supporting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United would be that the first amendment rights apply to everyone, even big corporations because if racists groups like the KKK can be entitled to free speech rights, like Obama has said, “we do not ban or punish” the speeches of people who do not agree with, even if it is ‘blasphemous.’ We can not deny protection to one version of speech without acknowledging the other amounts of speech we do protect like the Nazi, ones that involve national security, and one that exposes citizens activities. Also, companies were already spending money before the ruling of this case, an example Abrams brings up- “George Soros spend 24 million in 1988 to get the democratic and progressive candidates elected.” Abrams believed that Citizens United is benefitting our nation by allowing negative ads which he claims is an extension of free speech.
Although, something interesting to mention is Abrams claim that Hillary was the frontrunner in the race with Obama but after the film was released, she was seen as unfit to be the president. A negative thing is that, most likely, republicans would be the ones who profit from allowing companies to spend unlimited amounts during a campaign. A very true fact that Marrison mentioned is that, in order to view the Hillary film, one had to actually pay HBO to see it, it was not an AD which are free and run during intermissions of shows. Morrison also brings up that First Amendment rights by prisoners are limited by not allowing them reading material beyond simple subject books and also the limited free speech of the armed forces. A good example brought up is a government worker being fired for his right to free speech as well. Essentially, there is always a limitation so to say that corporations should not be limited because no one else is, is essentially a half-assed excuse and power-grab by the supreme court.
LikeLike
The strongest argument for the Supreme Court’s ruling in the ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is that, although a corporation is considered an entity, it is composed of people. And because free speech is a right in this country, corporations should still be able to create content expressing opposing views about a candidate during an election.
An argument against the ruling of this decision is that a corporation, although composed of people, has much more monetary clout than average voters. The more money a candidate acquires the more likely they will have a better chance of being elected making the campaigning funding process inequitable.
LikeLike
Among the strongest argument for those against the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United is the argument that there is no such thing as unregulated free speech. Alan Morrison mentions the prisoners, soldiers, government officials, students, and foreigners as some of the examples in which unregulated free speech has been denied to them. Their freedom of speech has been denied by a high authority. Morrison makes the argument that through the Citizens United ruling, it would give companies the ability to impose their agenda.
On the other hand, one of the strongest arguments posed by Floyd Abrams, is that the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of one side, despite the fact that republicans might profit more from the ruling. The ruling instead helps maintain the idea that freedom of speech is universal even if it can be controversial, ” we don’t impose liability against a group of individuals”. In allowing this sort of speech, Abrams argues that it can also benefit liberals and points out organizations such as the NAACP.
LikeLike
The strongest argument on the liberal side is that liberals see Citizens United as a modern-day campaign to revitalize what is known as “Lochnerism,” a way to capitalize on the Constitution as a tool for the privileged few. For them, it is a pernicious example of judicial activism in support of a bold attempt to write laissez-faire principles into the Constitution of the United States.
For the Conservatives, they believe that Citizen United is nothing more than a classic example of protecting political speech.
LikeLike
One argument that citizens united made was that the BCRA was violating their first amendment rights to free political speech in expressing their support for a specific candidate. Another argument for citizens united is that there is a lot of judicial precedent that shows that many of the landmark supreme court cases involving the first amendment often times included corporations. The strongest argument against Citizens United includes that it made it easier for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of their candidates which could make way for a lot of political corruption. Another argument or case used to go against citizens united was the case of McConnell v. FEC which determined that the BCRA wasn’t explicitly violating ones first amendment rights.
LikeLike
Bittersweet this is the last blog.
There are multiple arguments for and against Citizens United. The following are arguments for the ruling:
1) Seemly nobody was complaining about money in politics when George Soros spent $24 million of his own money in the 1988 campaign. Soros’ goal was to help get Democratic and Progressive candidates elected into office. People are now finding an issue with money in politics, if this money is being spent to help Republicans elected.
2) Corporations have always been treated as “people.” Corporations have often been involved in First Amendments disputes. For example, in Mills v. Alabama, the Court ruled that a newspaper’s editorial can’t be controlled by state’s actors. The state can’t tell a newspaper what to editorialize and what not to.
3) Direct contributions to candidates are still regulated.
4) Although corporations can’t be put in jail. Corporations are run by executives and employees. One could consequently inhibit these employee’s speech by inhibited the speech of the corporation as a whole.
These are some arguments against the Citizens United case:
1) The Court willingly took a broad perspective of the case. Instead of ruling on what it was directly argued, the Court opted to rule broadly.
2) Large amount of money in campaigns can undermine the voice of the minority and the voice of those that don’t have the same money.
3) Speech is not limitless. For example, students that work for a school’s newspapers can’t publish anything they wish; the speech of federal employees can be regulated; anybody in the armed forces is unable to say whatever they want. The Court, however, opted that there should be no limit on how money corporations can spend in campaigning for a candidate. Laws that inhibit some speech are justified by their circumstances. The majority in Citizens United did not take these circumstances into consideration. Instead, they had an absolutists view.
I was watching an interview of former President Gerald Ford by journalist Hugh Sidey yesterday afternoon. The interview is currently on YouTube and can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-gSsEMmGUw. To my surprise, President Ford had argued that we ought to abolish Political Actions Committee. He argued that these PACs undermine the voice of the people. If people wish to contribute to campaigns, they should do so directly, and not give it to an organization or a corporation. Should those anti-Citizens United folks start addressing PACs instead of the corporations? At the end of the day, PACs are the ones spending the money—corporations are simply giving it away. Shouldn’t the focus now be on PACs, rather than corporation?
LikeLike
Bittersweet indeed!
This is a really great summary, Luis. And I’ll take a look at that Gerald Ford video. He might have a good point, and I think there are some candidates who are becoming less reliant on PACs or questioning the idea of them. I’m glad you also brought up the idea of liberal hypocrisy on Citizens United: other than the large donors like Soros, it doesn’t seem like progressives have been too troubled with receiving donations from labor unions in political campaigns. Indeed, many of the unions SUPPORT Citizens United…
LikeLike
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a Supreme Court case fought in 2010. The case dealt with the regulations of political campaign spending by organizations. Eventually, the Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 ruling, that the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects organizations and corporations in the act of funding independent political broadcasts (ads), and cannot be limited. In his opinion, Collins points out that he agrees with the Supreme Court ruling because “our constitution protects the right to engage in free speech”. This is a good arguement, because he then goes on to list various examples of cases in which we have allowed free speech, without question (juries, church groups, etc). This could also be a bad argument because, as Allan Morison points out, there are limits to free speech. Prisoners have restrictions on what they can and cannot do. Journalists, foreigners, and people speaking out against their jobs , or government, have restricted First amendment rights.
-Sally Balbuena
LikeLike
The fundamental position of those support the Citizens United ruling in 2011, is that the ruling is necessary because it protects the First Amendment from government intervention. In the debate, Floyd Abrams noted that multiple Supreme Court cases in the past have upheld the First Amendment for corporations. Most of the essential First Amendment cases that ensure all Americans their liberties, comes from cases that have a corporation as a petitioner. The freedom of speech is an essential liberty all must enjoy, and nothing should get in the way of an individual or group to express their belief anyway they can. Abrams also dismisses the argument that Citizens United must be over turned to address the inequality of influence between wealthy donors and individuals. He argues that although inequality is an important issue that needs to be addressed, it should not be solved at the expense of freedom of speech.
People who are against the ruling in Citizens United, such as Alan Morrison, argue that the ruling born out of the desire to weaken campaign finance laws, rather than uphold freedom of speech. Morrison points out the fact that the film in question was not an advertising, it was a feature length film on HBO. He also claims that the film already did not have to comply with campaign finance laws, since it was already protected by the first amendment. Morrison then argues that the Roberts Court intentionally addressed for-profit corporations, when the Citizens United case was heard as a non-profit case. Morrison then argues that Kennedy’s opinion incorrectly claimed that the government should not and cannot categorize speakers. Since the government routinely undermines the freedom of speech for prisoners, armed service members, public school students, government employees and foreigners. Morrison then points out what he believes is hypocrisy in Kennedy’s opinion, that said that independent expenditures had no affect on elections. While a year earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that a district judge could not sit in a case involving someone who made contributions to the judge’s campaign. Finally, Morrison makes the broad point, that although the case involves the First Amendment, there are more important things to address. Citing Justice Brandeis’ quote, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” People who are against Citizens United believe that the damage caused by the ruling fundamentally undermines democracy and government function, even if it attempts to protect the First Amendment.
LikeLike
When looking at Citizens United there is several aspects to look at especially, for the argument against it. For example, one of the major flaws is the benefits gained to the upper classes specifically this can be seen during the 2016 campaign with Hillary and Trump who were both supported by SuperPACs and Dark Money groups, which were linked to lobbyists and other supports, that are able to use loopholes to increase and uncap the amount of expenditure spend on campaign funds which shot in the billions. This can also be seen back in the 2012 election during Obama’s campaign as well. An issue with trying to get rid of this ruling is that neither Democrats or Republican would necessarily even try because it benefits both sides during campaigns. The strongest argument for this decision is the protection of the first amendment because this falls under freedom of speech and expression. While this argument can be seen as a valid constitutional reason, it still fails to see how these huge funded campaigns can actually warp and corrupt what we see and hear.
LikeLike