Chas Goldman

12-20-15
Judicial
Citizens United DBQ
In 1910 President Teddy Roosevelt called for laws that would prohibit the use of
corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes [as they supply] one of the
principal sources of corruption in our political affairs (Background Essay). Congress had
already taken action to try to keep corporations from influencing the political process
with the Tillman Act in 1907 but, Roosevelts speech prompted a slew of laws that further
restricted the role corporations, labor unions and special interest groups could play in the
political process. These laws include the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1910), Hatch Act
(1939) and Taft-Hartley Act (1947), all of which were aimed at reducing corruption and
the role of corporations in the campaign process. The Federal Elections Campaign Acts
(FECA) of 1971 and 1974 replaced these laws. The FECA limited the amount of money
that could be donated to candidates and required full disclosure of donors to candidates.
Then in 1976 the Supreme Court struck down parts of the FECA in Buckley v. Valeo by
reasoning that restricting the expenditure of money to promote or demote a candidate
restricted that individuals or groups constitutional right of free speech. After Buckley v.
Valeo direct contributions to candidates were still restricted but donations to Political
Action Committees (PACs) were not. The years following Buckley v. Valeo saw an
increasing role of big money in the election process. Congress then passed the Bipartisan
Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002, which established special interest group
could not specifically name a candidate within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days
of a general election. A non-profit organization called Citizens United challenged the
constitutionality of the BCRA and the Supreme Court took up the case of Citizens United

v. F.E.C. in 2010. The Supreme Court ruled in the case that the, ban on corporate, union
and independent expenditures was unconstitutional under the First Amendments speech
clause (Background Essay). The ruling in essence extended the precedent set by Buckley
v. Valeo that restricting money in the campaign process is restricting speech. The ruling
allows for the unlimited and unrestricted pooling of money to candidates through
Political Action Committees (PACs). In the ruling Citizens United v. F.E.C. the Supreme
Court ruled unconstitutionally. The Supreme Courts ruling violates the core beliefs of the
Founding Fathers and wrongly interprets the First Amendment, encourages government
corruption and erodes the democratic principle of one-person one vote.
The Constitution was founded on the idea of republican government and the
Courts ruling in Citizens United v. F.E.C. erodes the republican government principle
that power should be in the hands of individual citizens. The First Amendment states,
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances (Document C). However the Founding Fathers, the authors of the first
amendment and the visionaries for the government of the United States, understood that
the First Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals, not corporations or
other interest groups. The Dissenting Opinion on Citizens United v. F.E.C., written by the
four Supreme Court judges who disagreed with the majority decision write, Unlike our
colleagues, the Framers had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings,
and hen they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the
free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind, (Document J). A prime
example of the argument that the ruling is constitutional is in the editorial A Free Speech

Landmark in the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that focuses on the business world
and has a historically corporate bias. The article states, corporations are entitled to the
same right that individuals have to spend money on the political speech for or against a
candidate, (Document M). However this argument can be rebuked by the fact that the
Framers understood that free speech applies to individuals and not to corporations.
Proponents of the ruling also argue that since no Founding Father ever wrote explicitly
that corporate rights were less than individual rights and that the ruling doesnt directly
counter the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The Dissenting Opinion on Citizens United v.
F.E.C. discredits the argument that the ruling is not contrary to the beliefs of the
Founding Fathers by arguing that at the time of the Founding Fathers, the very notion of
corporate speech was inconceivable, (Document J). The five Supreme Court judges
that ruled in favor of Citizens United in the case Citizens United v. F.E.C. fundamentally
misunderstood the First Amendment and in doing so countered the beliefs of the
Founding Fathers.
The Supreme Courts ruling in Citizens United v. F.E.C encourages corruption in
the political process. Corruption has played a role in the American political process for a
long time. A 1889 political cartoon by Joseph Keppler entitled The Bosses of the
Senate depicts senators being ruled over by big corporate CEOs that look like money
bags (Document D). The message of the cartoon is that the corporations control the
government through money. Teddy Roosevelt delivered his New Nationalism Speech in
1910 in order to shed light on the rampant corporate corruption in American politics and
in it he said, [O]ur government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister
influence or control of special interests the great special business interests too often

control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit, (Document
E). After Roosevelts speech strong comprehensive legislation was passed to curb the
influence that corporations have in government. That strong comprehensive legislation to
reduce corruption was struck down in Citizens United v. F.E.C. President Barack Obama
criticized the courts decision in his State of the Union Address in 2010. Obama is a
Democrat and has some bias toward the decision since the ruling opens up the floodgates
to corporate money in politics and Republicans, Obamas opponents, have long been seen
the party of the corporations. The ruling could hurt Obama and the Democrats because
Republicans are likely to benefit from the increased corporate spending in the campaign
process resulting from the decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. In his address to the
nation Obama stated, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will
open the floodgates for special interest to spend without limit in our elections,
(Document O). The Supreme Courts ruling in Citizens United v. F.E.C. contradicted a
centurys worth of law aimed at curbing corruption in order to protect the right of free
speech of a corporation, a right that is not afforded to corporations by the First
Amendment.
The courts decision also erodes the democratic principle of one-person one vote.
The political cartoon entitled Another Dam Breaks by political cartoonist Matt
Wuerker depicts the Supreme Court accidently opening up floodgates and money floods
Capital Hill, meanwhile a couple of timid average Americans cast their vote (Document
L). The message of the cartoon is that the flood of money into Washington brought on by
the decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C. makes average citizens votes count for less while
the influence of corporations is huge. President Barack Obama said during his State of

the Union Address in 2010 that, I dont think American elections should be bankrolled
by Americas most powerful interests or worse by foreign entities They should be
decides by the American people, (Document O). The Supreme Courts ruling in Citizens
United v. F.E.C has significantly retracted the influence of the vote of the average
American in the political process and has perpetually increased the role that corporations
play in the political process. This thoroughly erodes the democratic principle of oneperson one vote since corporations and interest groups have much more say in the
political process than the average American does.
The Supreme Courts ruling in Citizens United v. F.E.C. is clearly
unconstitutional. The decision is based on a false interpretation of the First Amendment
that violates the ideals of the Founding Fathers. The ruling also promotes an increase in
government corruption by reversing over a centurys worth of campaign finance reform
laws and the ruling results in the erosion of the key democratic principle of one-person
one vote. In order to more accurately argue this topic it is necessary to have access to data
on how much money has been spent on elections over the past century and data on how
many people voted in each of those elections.