The Positives and Negatives of the Citizens United Decision

1. Introduction

In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and other organizations. The parties in the case had disagreed on whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) prohibited corporations and unions from spending money from their general treasury to support or oppose candidates in elections. In a divided opinion, the Court held that the BCRA’s expenditure limits violated the First Amendment’s protections for free speech.

The Citizens United decision was a significant victory for supporters of campaign finance reform. It removed many restrictions on corporate and union political activity and opened the door for increased spending on elections by these groups. However, the decision was also criticized by some who believe that it will lead to increased corruption and undue influence of special interests in our elections. In this essay, I will discuss both the positives and negatives of the Citizens United decision. I will argue that, while the ruling has some potential drawbacks, overall it is a positive development for our democracy.

2. Political speech and the First Amendment

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech. This right includes the freedom to express one’s opinions without interference from the government. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to protect several different types of expression, including political speech.

Political speech is a type of expression that is particularly important to democracy. In a democracy, citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. In order for citizens to make informed decisions about who to vote for, they need access to information about the candidates and their positions on issues. Political speech provides this information and allows citizens to hold their representatives accountable.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that political speech is entitled to special protection under the First Amendment. In its 1971 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, for example, the Court held that public figures could only sue for libel if they could prove that a false statement was made with “actual malice.” This means that a public figure must prove that the person who made the statement knew it was false or made it with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not. The Court reasoned that heightened protections were necessary because restricting political speech would “chill” public debate and prevent people from speaking out on important issues.

3. Protection of corporate political speech

In 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,1the Supreme Court extended these protections to corporations and other organizations. The Court held that these groups have a First Amendment right to engage in political speech just like individuals do.

The Citizens United case began when the group Citizens United produced a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.2 Under campaign finance laws, corporations and unions are generally prohibited from spending money from their general treasury to support or oppose candidates in elections3. Citizens United wanted to air commercials for its film on television during election season, but it feared that doing so would violate these campaign finance laws.4

Citizens United sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC), arguing that the campaign finance laws violated its right to free speech 5. The Supreme Court agreed6, holding that restrictions on corporate political spending are unconstitutional 7. The Court reasoned that corporations are “associations of citizens”8 who have a right to participate in the political process just like individuals do.

4. The conclusion

The Citizens United decision was a significant victory for supporters of campaign finance reform. It removed many restrictions on corporate and union political activity and opened the door for increased spending on elections by these groups. However, the decision was also criticized by some who believe that it will lead to increased corruption and undue influence of special interests in our elections. In this essay, I have discussed both the positives and negatives of the Citizens United decision. I have argued that, while the ruling has some potential drawbacks, overall it is a positive development for our democracy.
Citizens United has been both praised and criticized for its impact on campaign finance. Some argue that it has led to increased spending on elections and undue influence of special interests. Others argue that it has removed important restrictions on corporate political activity and opened up the political process to more people and organizations. In this essay, I have argued that, overall, the Citizens United decision is a positive development for our democracy. It has removed important restrictions on corporate political activity and opened up the political process to more people and organizations.

FAQ

More Related papers

• The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club: A History
• The Legacy of Bill Gates: Shaping and Profiting From the Computer Revolution
• "Intermission: Films from a Heroic Future" is an exhibition at the Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) in Montreal.
• The Guest Cycle: The Importance of Each Stage
• Desdemona – The Ideal Christian Woman