Citizens United v. FEC: Strangling the Political Rights of Individuals
Opening with an ambiguous John Edwards quote regarding nostalgia, partnered with cheap, yet eerie, orchestral music in the background, Hillary: The Movie immediately hits the audience with an onslaught of news headlines and interview snippets that condemn its namesake, Hillary Clinton. It is often forgotten that this low-budget 2008 film has had a blockbuster influence in transforming America’s modern political landscape and environment. The change the film has effected is measured at roughly $1,038,736,997, the amount of total outside spending in the 2012 election cycle immediately following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
…show more content…
Immediately following the decision, the scope of protection for those seeking to provide independent political expenditures, which are political campaign communications that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate without the cooperation of candidates and their associated parties/agents, widened to include for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. This expansion of corporate freedom of speech subsequently eliminated the campaign finance regulations that had been established to curb corporate America’s growing influence on politics, effectively creating the unprecedented billion-dollar election cycle and the Super PACS that fuel them. The Citizens United v. FEC case is touted as either a triumph of the first amendment or as a government failure to recognize the necessity to regulate corporations’ activities in campaign finance. Due to its lack of a unified regulative structure, the corporate campaign finance system contradicts the regulative principles that exist for corporations in other realms; these various regulations and structures exist for the universal purpose of preventing corruption, but, they do not
...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 first of the Progressive amendments is the 16th Amendment. Approved by the Senate in 1909, it introduced the graduated income tax where a person’s taxes increase relative to his or her income. Specifically, the tax charged 1 percent of incomes over $20,000 and a maximum of 7 percent on incomes over $500,000 (Walter Nugent, p.86). It was brought about after the 2 percent tax on incomes over $4,000 tariff in 1894, and was supported by President Taft, Southern and Western farmers, and the Progressives (Foner, p. 718). They believed respectively that the government should wean off obtaining money from tariffs, and that the income tax should fairly correlate to a person’s income. Moreover, it was believed that the amendment would ameliorate the drastic income disparity, and that it would provide the government with more revenue for its increasing state budgets.
The Texas Constitution is a document that describes the structure and purpose of the government in Texas. It took effect in February 15, 1876 and is amongst the longest state constitutions in the United States. It is the sixth constitution since claiming their independence from Mexico in 1836. Texas joined the United States under the Constitution of 1845 with provisions. Those provisions included allowing Texas to enter the union and begin the first U.S. statehood constitution. In 1861 Texas amended to transfer their statehood to the Confederacy. After the Confederacy was defeated Texas was required to adopt a constitution if they wanted to rejoin the union. The 1866 Constitution Convention emerged with a document but it did not last very long.
The Republican platform was in favor of Cuban independence and setting up a government in Puerto Rico. It favored construction of the Panama Canal and protective tariffs. The platform warned that businesses should not infringe upon the rights and interest of the people. It also was in favor for equal voting rights for Southern blacks. That last plank made TR wildly unpopular in the South and would allow Parker to win all the Southern states (“Roosevelt v. Parker” 1).
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
In December 1965, a group of students from Des Moines, Iowa met at Christopher Eckhardt’s home in order to plan a protest. During the meeting, the students planned to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season to show public support for a truce in the Vietnam War. However, the principal of the school got word of the planned protest and quickly established a policy that stated any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it. If they refused to do so, it would result in suspension. On December 16, 1965, the protest began and students Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day John Tinker experienced the same result by wearing his armband as well. All three students
Section 1. of the Amendment XXVI of the Constitution of the United States (US) states that the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Both houses of the Congress passed the amendment in March 1971.With thirty-eight states adopting it by July 1971; the 26th Amendment was ratified because the prerequisite for three-fourths of states approval had been achieved. President Nixon signed the amendment into law in the same year making the 26th constitutional amendment the quickest to ever be incorporated into the US Constitution. The amendment evoked diverse reactions amongst the public, with some saw it as a judicious
The United States Constitution is a national government that consist of citizen’s basic rights and fundamental laws. This document was signed on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia by the majority of representatives. Today, the United States Constitution’s purpose is to supply a strong central government. However, before the United States Constitution was developed, many citizens did not support the constitution due to the fact that they found it contradicting and detached from the original goals of the Declaration of Independence. These citizens were known as anti-federalists. Fortunately, George Washington was a supporter of the constitution and had an enormous impact in the public support of the constitution. With a few adjustments, some
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.
Pros and Cons of the Equal Rights Amendment. The Equal Rights Amendment began its earliest discussions in 1920. These discussions took place immediately after two-thirds of the states approved women's suffrage. The nineteenth century was intertwined with several feminist movements such as abortion, temperance, birth control and equality.
Title IX and the Education Amendments of 1972 were created to defend equal opportunities for women of all ages. Since its inception 44 years ago, women have seen impressive strides as well as disappointing failures. Social prejudice continues to exist limiting female participation opportunities, benefits for female athletes, coaching opportunities, and increased exposure to sexual assault and abuse. Few institutions treat female athletes equally due to the lack of enforcement by collegiate athletic departments. The enforcement of Title IX has not been a priority among far too many educational institutions leaving women open to discrimination and mistreatment.
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.
as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate
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.
Even in this modern day, your rights are not always secured. During wartime, the government can suspend Habeas Corpus, which prevents unfair arrests and punishments. Suspending Habeas Corpus is taking your rights to a fair trial, and throwing them in the trash. As you are probably assuming, the suspension of habeas corpus has been a controversial topic. You must also be asking yourself, “why take away the people's’ rights, wasn’t the United States built on the rights of citizens?”. Some people see that suspending Habeas Corpus could be useful during a war because it allows someone to quickly be prosecuted, with only the need for probable cause, while other people see it as an unnecessary check on American citizens’ rights.