Bill of Rights Resources
The First Amendment
http://www.constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=787
News Resources
Landmark Supreme Court ruling allows corporate political cash
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100121/pl_nm/us_usa_court_politics
Court Kills Limits On Corporate Politicking
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703699204575016942930090152.html
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Discussion Questions
1. What were the facts of the case in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)?
In 2008, a non-profit group, Citizens United, released a film that was critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The group wished to air broadcast and cable-TV ads for the film. The film would then have been available on pay-per-view within 30 days of the presidential election. Existing federal law banned “electioneering communications” (speech that called for the election or defeat of a candidate paid for by organizations) within 30 days of an election. Citizens United took their case to court, arguing the limit was an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment free speech.
2. How did the Court rule?
The Court struck down restraints on what on what profit-making and non-profit organizations may say (and when they can say it) during federal election campaigns as unconstitutional. The decision left intact a federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates, which dates back to 1907.
3. What was the Court’s reasoning for its decision?
The Court based its decision on the First Amendment, which was designed to protect political speech. The majority reasoned that “speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process.” Therefore, limits on corporate and union spending on political ads violated the First Amendment rights of those groups. Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority: “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought….
“A speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus function as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.”
4. In his dissent, Justice Stevens asserted, “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters….Like all other natural persons, every shareholder of every corporation remains entirely free…to do however much electioneering she pleases outside of the corporate form.” How would you respond to this statement?
Accept reasoned answers.
4. Do you agree with the Court’s ruling? What is your constitutional reasoning?
Some may agree with the Court, arguing that the First Amendment protects citizens’ right to organize in groups and pool their resources in order to promote a political message. They may say that the First Amendment was ratified in part because freedom of speech is essential for self government and that restricting political messages on the basis of who is saying them would be unconstitutional censorship. Others may disagree, arguing that while individuals in corporations, non-profits, unions and other groups have rights, the groups themselves do not. Further, they may say that since these kinds of groups already have a great deal of money and power, their role in speaking out about elections must be limited.
Extensions
President Obama was critical of the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in his State of the Union Address.
- How would you respond to the President’s statement?
- What resources would you use to support your response?
The President said:
“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”
