Instruction
View full description, read forum post, research the topic on your own, then start a new conversation.
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The majority said the decision was a vindication of the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle . . . that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.
You can find the Supreme Court's decision here https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf, but you can also read about it on the Supreme Court's blog at
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/
The Supreme Court’s ruling basically struck down the 2002 law, usually referred to as McCain-Feingold, which banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before general elections. In 2007, the Supreme Court narrowed the law saying it applied to communications “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”
In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to eliminate limits on how much money people can donate in one election season. The decision did not change the $5,200 limit on how much an individual can give to any single candidate during a two-year election cycle, but removed the aggregate contribution limit of $123,200 per cycle. In effect, the High Court expanded the loosening of campaign finance laws that began with the Citizens United decision.
The opinions from the justices in the Citizens United decision were bitterly divided, including:
Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote for the majority - “If the First Amendment has any force it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
Justice John Paul Stevens who dissented wrote - “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind, and selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”
What is your opinion on the issue(s) addressed by the Court and the Constitutional interpretation on which your opinion is based?
Tell me this post is live and earn a medal. Be the first to post and earn a medal.