This thesis examines the recently decided Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case regards campaign finance reform, and has raised significant controversy recently. This thesis will evaluate the arguments from both the dissent and the majority opinions, contextualize these arguments with respect to the history of campaign finance reform and the history of the legislation with regard to corporations, and will ultimately pass judgment on whether the Court was correct in its decision. Implications for the post-Citizens world will also be considered.

This study analyzes the rationale used by the Supreme Court in the 2010 case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The majority opinion and dissent were dissected and scrutinized for any weaknesses. After careful review and comparison with First Amendment theories and scholarly articles, it was found that the majority opinion and final decision were poorly reasoned and created a dangerous political communication landscape and a weakened Marketplace of Ideas.

In 2010, our definition of democracy in America was drastically changed by the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC. The Court ruled that under the First Amendment, corporations have the right to free speech. The decision removed the final ban on corporations, which prohibited corporate money used for direct advocacy. The consequences of this have been tremendous. The decision has allowed for the creation and rise of Super PACs and political active nonprofits. As a result, Super PACs and nonprofits now act as “shadow campaigns”. Outside groups have the ability to engage in voter suppression tactics without politically hurting the candidate. Unlike political candidates, there are no direct ramifications for an outside organization to get caught engaging in voter suppression. They are not held accountable by anyone. The ability to take political action that is independent from the government or campaigns allows for a new form of corruption. Corruption is no longer a coordinated act between corporate money and a candidate, but rather political actions that take place outside the public sphere. Political actions that take place in the private sphere are outside the realm of political accountability. The people stand powerless against private outside organizations.

In 2010, our definition of democracy in America was drastically changed by the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC. The Court ruled that under the First Amendment, corporations have the right to free speech. The decision removed the final ban on corporations, which prohibited corporate money used for direct advocacy. The consequences of this have been tremendous. The decision has allowed for the creation and rise of Super PACs and political active nonprofits. As a result, Super PACs and nonprofits now act as “shadow campaigns”. Outside groups have the ability to engage in voter suppression tactics without politically hurting the candidate. Unlike political candidates, there are no direct ramifications for an outside organization to get caught engaging in voter suppression. They are not held accountable by anyone. The ability to take political action that is independent from the government or campaigns allows for a new form of corruption. Corruption is no longer a coordinated act between corporate money and a candidate, but rather political actions that take place outside the public sphere. Political actions that take place in the private sphere are outside the realm of political accountability. The people stand powerless against private outside organizations.

This work argues that the Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case of Citizens United v. FEC (2010). Beginning with an analysis of past campaign finance law and jurisprudence, this paper then outlines the fact of the case in Citizens United and assesses each of the principle claims made by the majority and dissenting opinions. The analysis then pivots to a practical examination of the immediate legal and regulatory consequences of the decision, namely detailing the advent of super PACs. Furthermore, this paper evaluates the magnitude of super PAC and related dark money spending in the years following the decision and speculates about its impact on elections and shifting public opinion. Drawing from the historical precedent and empiric spending reality, this paper formally reargues the Citizens United case, striking down the five identified premises in the majority opinion’s ruling. These premises are as follows: money is speech, corporations are entitled to the same rights as natural persons, the governmental anticorruption interest is limited to only quid pro quo exchanges, the antidistortion rationale is unconstitutional, and disclosure requirements provide sufficient information to ensure transparency. This inquiry concludes that unlimited corporate independent expenditures have a distortionary impact on the electoral system, presenting a unique corruption threat. As such, Citizens United should be formally overturned.

With recent and contentious Supreme Court cases dealing with corporate constitutional rights, such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), as well as with the appointment of a new justice, the time is particularly ripe for evaluations of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area, including predictions about the future of this line of cases. The purpose of this thesis is to establish a better understanding of the historical jurisprudential approach utilized by the Supreme Court to decide corporate constitutional rights by establishing the well-known doctrine of selective incorporation as an appropriate analogy. No other works attempt to frame the case history of corporate constitutional rights within a consistent doctrine, yet many works seek to evaluate and predict Court decisions in this area. This work will therefore create a new frame of reference for corporate constitutional rights, providing a new basis for interpretation and predictions. This thesis begins by conducting a thorough overview of both lines of cases, focusing on the establishment of each doctrine over time as well as the reasoning behind the Court’s use of this particular approach. Once a clear picture of both approaches has been ascertained, this thesis moves on to an overall comparison and evaluation of both approaches. In finding the process, intent, and overall effect of both jurisprudential approaches to be the same, the use of selective incorporation as an analogy for the Supreme Court’s approach to corporate constitutional rights gives way to predictions about the future of corporate constitutional rights. Considering the relevant views expressed by the new justice, Neil Gorsuch, and the previous decisions of the Roberts Court, this analogy provides solid evidence for predicting continued expansion of corporate constitutional rights, including such areas as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and perhaps even rights of the accused. The comparative approach used in this thesis, as well as the analogy it establishes, can also be revisited as new Court decisions are made and as the makeup of the Court changes overtime.

No description available.

This study examined how Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS portrayed the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision from the time of the decision, January 21, 2010 until the mid-term elections November 2, 2010. The broadcast transcripts were read for emergent frames to see how the stations framed coverage. The cable channels had the most coverage. MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS framed the decision negatively, Fox News portrayed it positively, and CNN was neutral to negative in coverage.

No description available.

Modern democracies rest on a foundation of values essential to their prosperity. Two of those values are freedom of speech and political equality. To many, these values appear to coexist effortlessly. However, what this thesis aims to expose are some of the problems that quickly arise when attempts to interpret the values fail. The thesis investigates a specific US Supreme Court ruling called Citizens United. The ruling enabled corporations and unions to use their own treasuries for unlimited independent political expenditures. Previous laws that prohibited such corporate and union expenditures were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech. The ruling also paved the way for another court ruling in the US called SpeechNow.org. Facilitated by the two court rulings the so called Super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations could receive and spend unlimited money to expressly support or oppose political candidates and parties in American elections. With an analytical framework consisting of John Rawls’s theories the Veil of Ignorance and the Difference Principle a conclusion concerning Citizens United’s righteousness can be made. The thesis concludes that the Supreme Court based its ruling on a misinterpretation of the value of freedom of speech and that Citizens United resulted in greater political inequality in the US.