15 Case Summaries for ap gov't & Politics Contents
) The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations and 2)
Download 0.6 Mb. View original pdf
|
| 1) The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations and 2) Political speech is indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual The justices said that the government’s rationale for the limits on corporate spending— to prevent corruption—was not persuasive enough to restrict political speech. A desire to prevent corruption may justify limits on donations to candidates, but not on independent expenditures spending that is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign) to support or oppose candidates for elected office. The majority struck down the BCRA’s limits on independent expenditures, but it did not strike down parts of the BCRA that require that televised electioneering communications include disclosures about who is responsible for the ad and whether it was authorized by the candidate. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) © 2018 Street Law, Inc. 17 Dissent Justice Stevens, writing for the dissenters, said that the First Amendment protects people, not corporations. The dissenters concluded that the government should be allowed to ban corporate money from political elections, because it could overwhelm the debate and drown out non- corporate voices. They noted that Congress had imposed special rules on corporate campaign spending for more than 100 years. The dissenters also urged adherence to the Austin precedent, which had upheld similar bans. Without such limits, corporations wealth could give them unfair influence in the electoral process and lead to elections where corporate domination of the airwaves would decrease the average voter’s exposure to different viewpoints. They argued that the Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation Finally, the dissenters argued that the BCRA left open ways for corporations to speak through various mechanisms and even to broadcast political positions outside the limited pre-election windows. The dissenters considered these to be reasonable time limitations intended to protect the integrity of the electoral process against excessive PAC influence. They also argued that restrictions on use of corporate money for political purposes would better protect corporate shareholders from having their stake in a corporation used to support candidates with whom they disagree. Impact Citizens United has remained a highly controversial decision in the years since the Court handed down its ruling. The decision prompted the creation of many independent expenditure only groups, nicknamed Super PACs,” that can raise and spend money without limits. Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, every election cycle has broken records for the amount of outside money spent on elections. Super PACs have emerged as the largest spenders. Those who support the decision argue that it allows voters to hear more voices, helping them to come to more educated decisions when voting. Those who oppose it insist that it gives lobbyists and special interest groups undue power over the political process because large corporations can spend more on campaign contributions than individual donors can. Street Law Case Summary © 2018 Street Law, Inc. Last updated 08/23/2021 Download 0.6 Mb. Share with your friends:
|