Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The United States of America has gone through a long history before it finally reached the first age of democracy in the 19th century. Democracy means a system of running organizations, businesses, and groups where their members are enabled to cast their votes and be part of the decisions. In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Court overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) McCain-Feingold campaign-financial law. Thus, corporations and other wealthy organized groups are now able to fund a campaigning candidate unlimitedly. Throughout this paper, I will argue that money is not a threat to democracy because corporations are humans in a sense, of fairness, and respect for democracy.
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
In the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) case, the Supreme Court came up with two main conclusions that in favor of Citizens United. The first conclusion was that the inquiry whether the US Code Title 2 Section 441b (2 U. S. C. §441b) applied to Hillary: The Movie, (Hillary) could not be resolved on other, smaller grounds without chilling political speech. Hence, the Court had to think about the effect of Austin v. MCC’s (1990) speech suppression. Since Hillary was not an electioneering communication and publicized as stated in 2 U. S. C. §441b, Citizens United demanded the Court to invalidate that section and lift the ban on nonprofit corporate political speech being unable to receive funds from individuals. This case could not be solved without referring to the First Amendment, which recognizes freedom of speech. Citizens United also wanted to ban the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was the law that forbade corporations to run television advertisements about the candidate 30 days before the primaries (558 U.S. 310, at 1-2).
The second conclusion revoked Austin v. MCC (1990). Therefore, the FEC did not supply a basis for letting the government limit corporate independent spending, and §441b could be relevant to Hillary. The Buckley Court banished the US Code Title 18 Section 608 (18 U.S. C. §608)s expenditures restriction since it did not show any essential governmental interest in the appearance of corruption in the electoral process. The First Amendment impeded Congress from arresting both citizens and their associations based on political speech, but Austin v. MCC (1990) ruled out the protection of corporations political speech, therefore, allowing the U.S. government to hold them legally accountable. The Court also found that under §441b of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the government could not provide a cohesive understanding of corporations funding powers. It is under-inclusive in the sense that the statute or §203 of BCRA only protects opposite shareholders interests for 30 to 60 days before an election. But, at the same time, it is over-inclusive as it includes all corporations (558 U.S. 310, at 3-4).
Majority Opinion
Justice Anthony Kennedy provided the majority opinion. Kennedy argued that speech was an important mechanism of democracy in the U.S. Kennedy thought that the government should allow companies to express their freedom of speech as stated in the First Amendment by not limiting their rights to fund and support the candidates. To Kennedy, the issue of corporations not being able to fund the candidates was merely censorship because by taking away the speakers right, the government denied the less advantaged people to use of their rights in a speech to establish support for the candidates. The government might not deprive the public of determining what kind of speech the public wants to choose because the First Amendment protects it. Furthermore, Kennedy pointed out that the Court has protected corporations rights in speech since 1886. Kennedy further argued that the First Amendment could veto the government from targeting corporations if the First Amendment had a force. Hence, McCain-Feingold and Austin v. MCC must be repealed (Toobin 2012: 12-13).
Minority Opinion
Throughout the whole process in the Court, the Court stated that BCRAs §§201 and 311 were legitimate for Hilary. The Court deemed the disclaimer and disclosure requirements had no limitation on campaign-oriented activities. They put Hilary into BCRAs category of electioneering communication. The Court rejected Citizen Uniteds discontent with §201 and §311. In addition to this, John Paul Stevens had a dissent to the Courts decision. Stevens thought that the law should not develop too fast, and he proposed that each case must rationally follow its predecessors. He was unhappy with the judges and with Kennedys declaration on corporations and humans having equal rights under the First Amendment. Steven showed his dissent in Kennedys arguments. Steven argued the views of corporations and humans were the same. Steven argued that when people talked about the First Amendment, it only applied to the Americans and it has been like that for decades. In addition to this, Steven further argued that Kennedys arguments would have agreed on the propaganda broadcasts to the American soldiers by Tokyo Rose the same protection as spoken by the commanders (Toobin 2012: 13-15).
Money in Politics and My Argument
In the past decade, campaigns allowed the parties that gained support from the socioeconomically challenged to battle against the wealthy opponents. However, in the 21st century, money-based campaigns have received significant boosts to the candidates. Candidates with more money in their campaigns were more likely to win the election. In the U.S., democracy allows the candidates to acquire funds to spend on their campaigns with no time limitation on when funds can be used. Some people were concerned about the possibility of corruption in the unlimited funding. The government at the federal level imposed laws to address this issue. Yet the Supreme Court demolished the restrictions on money in politics through two 2 cases. The first one was Buckley v. Valeo (1976). In this case, the Supreme Court tore down the limitation on candidates expenditures. The second one was in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. In this case, the Court regulated that the government had no authority to limit the funds from companies to the candidates.
Some people disagreed with the Courts final decision and thought that the role of money in politics could harm democracy in the U.S. They might view the huge involvement of money in politics could increasing the practice of corruption. However, the BCRAs §441b did not apply to the video on demand within 30 days before the election. It did not violate the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which prohibited corporations from running candidate-supporting or candidate-opposing television commercials. The Court has also decided that corporations were parts of the speech according to the First Amendment. In the reading, when people talked about corporations, they would relate them to moneys involvement in U.S. politics. Due to the controversy of moneys involvement in politics, I will further argue why people should involve money in politics.
First of all, in the U.S., all policies or rules have to refer to the Amendment, and the First Amendment covers freedom of speech. BCRAs §203 prohibits corporations from spending their money to support the campaigning candidates. However, in a corporation, numerous people share the same visions, missions, and values, including political values. In other words, corporations are people. Since §203 prohibits corporations from funding campaigning candidates, it indirectly violates freedom of speech as mentioned in the First Amendment. Secondly, the concept of fairness itself is not fair to the groups that gain corporate support. The anti-corporation groups might say that it is unfair for the candidate who receives funds from corporations to fight against the candidate who does not get funds from corporations. However, to know what fairness is, the government should not restrict money spent from corporations to a candidate. Pro-corporation groups put more effort into convincing corporations to support them. The anti-corporations can do the same by fund-raising and asking for corporations support. This way, people will have a fairground to fight. Lastly, the Courts decision is valid and sound because it has to go through the process of democracy in the Court. To promote democracy in America, therefore people should respect the Courts decision.
In summary, the Citizens United v. FEC case rescinded BCRAs laws that prohibit corporations from participating in funding the campaigning candidate. Some people might find this decision harmful to the democracy in the U.S. As the minority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, John Paul Stevens wrote his dissent in Kennedys arguments in the Court. However, Kennedys arguments proposed better reasons for why the government should allow corporations to fund the campaigning candidates. Supported by Kennedys arguments, therefore, I further argue that corporations being people as stated in the First Amendment, fairness, and respect for democracy are the reasons why money is not dangerous to U.S. democracy.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.