In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed with the intent of constraining the ability of corporations and other wealthy organizations from exerting undue influence on federal elections. During the campaign for the 2008 presidential election, a conservative political organization called Citizens United attempted to release a movie denouncing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but was required to request an injunction against the Federal Elections Commission, or the FEC. This federal agency imposes campaign finance law, due to restrictions of the BCRA- specifically, section 203, which prohibited the use of general treasury funds to fund electioneering communications, and sections 201 and 311, which mandates that the corporation …show more content…
Supreme Court held that the BCRA and the Federal Election Commission had violated Citizens United’s First Amendment rights on the basis that, “...Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity” (558 U.S. 310, at 365). Kennedy also argued that, “... overruling Austin ‘effectively invalidate[s] not only BCRA Section 203, but also 2 U. S. C. 441b’s prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds for express advocacy.’” This majority was also comprised of Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts. A second decision that upheld the constitutionality of sections 201 and 311 saw Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in the majority (Oyez). The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) decision in question, which determined that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals, saw the Supreme Court overturning precedents in two prior cases: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. the Federal Election Commission (2003). The Austin decision determined that corporate entities were not entitled to the same free speech protections as are individuals, and the McConnell decision held this with an added restriction on electioneering communication (558 U.S. 310, at …show more content…
In this period, it has been cited 1019 times. The vitality of the precedent in all courts is 176, with three positive citations by the Supreme Court. There are currently no negative citations of Citizens United from lower courts or the Supreme Court. Some cases in issue areas outside the specific realm of Citizens United have cited the case, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), a case concerning the religious freedoms of corporations, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), a case concerning firearms rights of individuals. Cases closer to the issue area in Citizens United include Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2010), McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014), and Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (2015), all three of which dealt with free speech as it pertains to campaign spending. While the case is not widely cited nor particularly vital, it is relatively recent and has been cited by cases with significant public impact, indicating that it has the potential to become an authoritative precedent in the future if the precedent is left in
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
The Marbury versus Madison case of 1803 irrefutably remains one of the most significant cases in history of the Supreme Court, because it was the first United States Supreme Court case to utilize the principle known as judicial review (History.com Staff, 2009). This principle gives the Judicial Branch of the government, in particular the federal courts, the power to declare an act of Congress null and void if they find that it conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. This mandate, by Chief Justice John Marshall, would become a point of contention that places the Supreme Court on par with not only Congress, but the Executive Branch of the government as well.
The case was decided 6-3 in favor of Alvarez. The Supreme Court ruled the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined in a plurality opinion. The plurality stated that freedom of speech under the First Amendment protects lying and false statements. Although the lies are frowned upon and socially unacceptable, the First Amendment protects those types of statements. With the application of strict scrutiny to this case, the Justices within the plurality found that the Stolen Valor Act was very broad and if it had more specific restric...
The first court case I will talk about is McCulloch vs maryland. This case was about America’s ability to tax the property of government buildings. Maryland was taxing a government bank that was owned by McCulloch. McCulloch didn 't agree with this ruling and refused to pay the tax. This case went to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed with McCollugh and cre...
After many more suits were filed, oral arguments in Bush v. Gore were brought before the US Supreme Court on December 11, 2000 by lawyers representing both sides. Due to the nature of the case, the court gave its opinion only 16 hours after hearing the arguments. Bush’s representation questioned, Does recounting in Florida violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution? Because all the votes were being counted unevenly, with standards varying from county to county, recounts in counties where he could have majority were not being conducted. Bush argued the decision went against the Constitution stating “nor shall any State.
...n their opinion, protected the right of citizens to vote. The Constitution was also used in the majority opinion to support the striking down of Section 4(b). Justice Roberts said that the constraints of Section 4(b) are in violation of the Constitution, which gives the power to regulate elections to the states, not to the federal government. Section 4(b) is a federal act that singles out the voting processes of certain states and jurisdictions. It can be said that the regulation of Section 5 and the coverage of Section 4(b) allow for the federal government to control in the elections of the covered areas. This case struck down Section 4(b), and effectively eliminated the use of Section 5, of the Voting Rights Act, which many consider to be an extremely significant act in the Civil Rights Movement. Shelby County v. Holder has not been superseded by any other cases.
In the United States we are divided by the left and right side on the political spectrum; even further divided into political parties such as Republicans, on the right, and Democrats, on the left side. These two political parties show philosophical differences through their viewpoints on major topics such as the economy, separation of church and state, abortion, and gun control.
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.
The United States, comprised of much political diversity, has only two major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists on March 20th, 1854, and is represented by its mascot, the elephant. Often referred to as the “Grand Old Party”, or GOP, Republicans favor customs that exude traditional Christian values with a platform based on American Conservatism. As a Christian myself, the values I share with Republican ideals are a main reason I side with the Republican Party.
The court system has jumped back and forth throughout the years and this may seem very confusing to the average person but they’ve never changed their mind on the big cases that were said in the previous paragraph. But the court seems to be sporadic in its decisions outside of these big cases. It all starts in 1962 when they held that prayer in the public schools was a violation of the first amendment.
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
The term “super PAC” (for groups officially known as “independent-expenditure only committees”) gained popularity in 2010 after the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case was decided in a 5-4 vote, and the decision argued that, under the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit independent spending by corporations and unions for political purposes. Soon afterward, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission that no limits could be placed on contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors and are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates or agendas they advocate.
Critics indicate that Super PACs have the influence to buy elections and override the average voter’s opinions in a participatory democracy. In the same context, they will also argue that the wealthy minority of donors to a Super PAC dictate over the views of the majority, which will eventually lead to corrupt politics and diminish democracy in the process. Many will argue in justification of Super PACs, asserting they are perfectly democratic under the Constitution’s First Amendment. An example of one of these arguments is made by a Joel M. Gora, a political professor at the Brooklyn Law School (Gora, 2013). Gora’s article is primarily a defense of Super PACs and of the First Amendment principles and imperatives they embody and reflect. In
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.
...nvolving for-profit corporations. Hobby Lobby Inc. is one of the plaintiffs. David Green and his family are the owners and say their Christian beliefs clash with parts of the laws’ mandates for comprehensive coverage. Companies that refuse to provide the coverage could be fined up to $1.3 million daily. The Obama administration has defended the law and federal officials say they have already created rules exempting certain nonprofits and religiously affiliated organizations from the requirements. The cases accepted by the Supreme Court were Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.