The stakeholders in this policy area, based on the amicus briefs filed in the Citizens United case and frequent litigants in other similar cases, include politicians, candidates for political office, political action committees, civil rights organizations, nonprofit and legal organizations, agents of the federal government, and political scientists. The Federal Elections Commission is a particularly typical litigant in this policy area, petitioning in a manner that would likely call for an overturning of the precedent in Citizens United. A number of politicians, both Democratic and Republican, also filed amicus briefs in favor of the appellee, the Federal Election Commission, making it probable that these and other politicians would be in favor of overturning the precedent set in Citizens United. Few politicians …show more content…
Many liberal-leaning and nonprofit organizations, such as the Democratic National Convention and the Sunlight Foundation, are likely to work in favor of overturning the precedent. In contrast, conservative organizations such as the National Rifle Association and the Cato Institute are more supportive of the precedent established in Citizens United, as are religiously-based political organizations like the Alliance Defense Fund and the Fidelis Center. Based on the amicus briefs filed in the case, many organizations concerned with free speech rights would also be in favor of maintaining the precedent in Citizens United, and political scientists can be found on both sides of the issue. (SCOTUSblog). The Supreme Court in Citizens United essentially made legal all campaign spending by corporations on the basis that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals, and campaign spending is a form of speech. In his partial dissent in Citizens United, Justice Stevens argues against this legal rule, stating, “Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a
...nsible for the content of this advertising.” Citizens United, aware that the airing of Hillary during the 2008 primaries would be illegal, tried to obtain an injunction to preclude the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the McCain-Feingold Act, claiming that sections 201, 203, and 311 of the law violated the First Amendment. The Federal Election Commission, despite Citizens United’s efforts, held that broadcast of Hillary would violate the McCain-Feingold Act and proceeded to ban the film from airing on television. Citizens United, seeking injunctive relief, decided to bring its case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. However, upon discovering that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had denied its application, Citizens United decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, despite being backed by 75 percent of House Republicans, and 41 percent of Senate Republicans, caused immense controversy in Washington. Senator James Buckley sued the secretary of the senate Frances Valeo on the Constitutionality of FECA. In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United.
In order to highlight all aspects of People v. Smith, 470 NW2d 70, Michigan Supreme Court (1991) we must first discuss the initial findings of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decision was based on the precedence of two similar court cases that created discussion concerning the admission of juvenile records into adult trials. Following the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court entered the final decision on Ricky Smith’s motion for resentencing. The Michigan Supreme Court also conducted a thorough examination of People v. Jones, People v. McFarlin, and People v. Price to determine the outcome of Smith’s motion to be resentenced.
The past few years, I’ve taken an interest into our constitution. As a result of this interest, I would at times sift through interesting Supreme Court cases. Tinker v. Des Moines and Johnson v. Texas would, to some, conflict with cases like Schenck v. United States. The line drawn on the issue of free speech to others may be blurry, but to me, it has always been crystal clear. So when Super PACs, Political Action Committees that can donate unlimited funds to an independent cause, arose, I concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to protect free speech. To most it seems, Super PACs are just evil PACs, and they, unlike regular PACs, ruin elections. They really only differ by their method, however, when discussing the movement of money. Super PACs are run “independently”, and PACs are usually partisan.
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.
This was upheld in two Supreme Court cases. In Buckley v. Veleo, the Supreme Court established that individuals cannot be barred from donating because it is protected speech. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court established that corporations cannot be barred from donating. These justify the activities of PACs because it is the individual rights of the people to have freedom of speech.
These pluralistic interest groups are free to operate and lobby in the political arena, fighting against the majority and other competing factions for voice in Congress. With the influence of multiple factions operating throughout the political system, a balance of power is created (Kernell 2000, 429). This is much like the international theory of sovereign states balancing each other’s power to create a political system that focuses on stability, yet is always in a constant flux of power. With this in mind, special interest groups are constantly contending for power by raising money, campaigning, and lobbying in Congress. When a special interest group is threatened by a competing policy, the group will organize efforts to balance, or transcend the power of the competing group.
A few years after its passage, FECA was challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. Then-U.S. Senator James Buckley and a host of other politically-involved co-plaintiffs sued then-Secretary of the Senate Francis Valeo and the FEC, arguing that FECA was unconstitutional and a contravention of the First Amendment’s free expression clause. The plaintiffs sought relief from FECA and asked that the Court declare the act unconstitutional and accordingly issue an injunction against the matter. Additionally, the plaintiffs challenged a provision of FECA which stipulated the composition of the members of the FEC.
The right to free exercise of religion is stated in the First Amendment and was created in 18783. This clause would be mostly likely used by religion based corporations as they can dictate what insurance can cover among other subjects. Citizens United was mainly about companies making unlimited donations to indecent expenditures in political races. The reason Citizens United is related to the Hobby Lobby case is that it gave the idea that corporations are considered people which could be sued as a precedent to the Hobby Lobby case.
In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association.
End Citizens United (EDU) is committed to seeing that every citizen has an equal say in the election of its government officials. Strong advocates of the reversal of the 2010 Supreme Court decision that its group was named for; this organization believes that our current campaign finance system favors the rich and powerful and works against the everyday American. Since this ruling, powerful players such as large corporation and the super rich can now funnel unlimited resources to political campaigns potentially giving them enormous sway in their outcome.
The advocacy explosion is strongly linked to the decline of the American political party and the role of the political parties in elections. As interest groups have gained more power and had a larger control over politics and political goods the power that is exerted by political parties has dwindled. The power of the interest group has grown larger with the amount of members and the financial rewards that have come with the new members. In elections interest groups do not usually participate directly with the candidate or the election. Berry points out that “Groups often try to leverage their endorsement to obtain support for one of their priorities” (Berry, 53). With interest groups spreading their resources around the actual election can be affected very minimally by the many interest groups that contribute money to the election. However, the candidates who obtain political office through the help of special interest money still owe some sort of loyalty to the interest group regardless of which party wins the election. This loyalty and the promise of more money in the future gives the elected of...
The most powerful jurists in the country cannot do math. In March 2018, when the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford, a landmark case that would determine the future of partisan gerrymandering, its members were reluctant to consider statistical evidence seriously.
These limitations warrant a broader investigation into other politicized issues. The Supreme Court highly politicized the two issues we focus on, with abortion arguably being the most politicized topic in our country, so our research cannot extend to all Supreme Court issues, especially those which are not as politically polarizing. However, it is reasonable to expect that other high profile issues, such as the death penalty or same-sex marriage, have similar results to what we discovered for abortion and affirmative action. A further investigation into which issues prompt the most media coverage and hearing comments compared to abortion and affirmative action may show the particular importance of these two issues, especially abortion, in politics, the judiciary, and
Through the history of the United States there has been court cases and other choices that the government took and did not reflect what the United States constitution and Bill of Rights say and stand for. The U.S. Government has not be true to their own Constitution and Bill of Rights. In the court cases Schenck v. U.S. , Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. U.S the U.S. Government has disrespected and not reflected the Constitution and Bill of Rights.