Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission: Case Study
Kiersten Foster AP Government & Politics
December 8, 2013 Mr. Raveret
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:
First amendment rights or the government 's cold shoulder to corporations? With the bitter wounds of British tyranny still stinging, the Founding Fathers thought up the first amendment. Democracy flourishes only when freedoms to express views, both political and those of other concerns, are guaranteed. What happens, however, when your own government seizes and destroys these rights, in its attempt to censor the public 's pursuit of political knowledge. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) court case brings forth this question and many more, as Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, was challenged in their attempt to broadcast "Hillary: the movie," by the FEC. The verdict, which was ruled in favor of Citizens United, deemed the film an act of the organization 'a first amendment right to free speech. Correct in their ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the abolition of restrictions …show more content…
Valeo and McConnell and Wisconsin Right To Life, independent expenditures mustn 't be touched by the government. Subsequently, corporate contributions and their requirements have also come under scrutiny by critics of the Citizens United ruling. This case deals solely, with independent expenditures as it upholds the previous rulings that corporations must disclose their contributions to candidates. It was written by Justice Kennedy during the Supreme Court 's hearing of Citizens United v. FEC, "Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way." Donating to campaigns, therefore must be regulated in order to prevent corruption, but is still an effective way to communicate to voters and candidates. Most important, the verdict of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, upholds the ideal that corporations must be treated as
December 8, 2013 Mr. Raveret
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:
First amendment rights or the government 's cold shoulder to corporations? With the bitter wounds of British tyranny still stinging, the Founding Fathers thought up the first amendment. Democracy flourishes only when freedoms to express views, both political and those of other concerns, are guaranteed. What happens, however, when your own government seizes and destroys these rights, in its attempt to censor the public 's pursuit of political knowledge. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) court case brings forth this question and many more, as Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, was challenged in their attempt to broadcast "Hillary: the movie," by the FEC. The verdict, which was ruled in favor of Citizens United, deemed the film an act of the organization 'a first amendment right to free speech. Correct in their ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the abolition of restrictions …show more content…
Valeo and McConnell and Wisconsin Right To Life, independent expenditures mustn 't be touched by the government. Subsequently, corporate contributions and their requirements have also come under scrutiny by critics of the Citizens United ruling. This case deals solely, with independent expenditures as it upholds the previous rulings that corporations must disclose their contributions to candidates. It was written by Justice Kennedy during the Supreme Court 's hearing of Citizens United v. FEC, "Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way." Donating to campaigns, therefore must be regulated in order to prevent corruption, but is still an effective way to communicate to voters and candidates. Most important, the verdict of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, upholds the ideal that corporations must be treated as