Resolved: On balance‚ the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process. My partner and I stand in firm negation of today’s resolution. If my partner and I uphold that the Citizens United decision does not directly harm our election process‚ then we win today’s round. Contention 1: Citizens United has negligible effect on public participation in elections. In fact‚ the decision actually supports voter turnout. Many would argue that a bombardment
Premium Election Voter turnout Supreme Court of the United States
The case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission was argued before the Supreme Court on March 24‚ 2009. Citizens United produced a political documentary that discussed whether Hillary Clinton would be a good president‚ however‚ the FEC stated that this was violating the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Although the film could have been shown in theaters‚ sold on DVDs‚ downloaded from the internet‚ and distributed in the form of a book‚ the producers could have faced five years in
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
The landmark Supreme Court case‚ Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) changed the system of political campaign contributions in the United States. In the close 5-4 decision‚ the Supreme Court ruled that organizations are allowed to make unlimited political donations. The Justices reached their decision using the First Amendment‚ which pertains to free speech. To state it plainly‚ money equals speech. Surely‚ the Justices in favor of the decision assumed that the donor groups or individuals
Premium Economics Corporation Management
of corporate money in elections as a result of Progressive reform’s efforts to eliminate social and political problems‚ especially corruption. These specific laws have been in place up until January 21‚ 2010 during the landmark case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission‚ when the Supreme Court ruled with a 5-4 majority that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. As a result‚ the court also overruled its 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States
Although corporations are comprised of individuals‚ it is highly debated if corporations deserve the same rights that the Constitution grants each American citizen. The First Amendment gives each citizen equal opportunity to pursue his or her own ambitions in coalition with their great nation. In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case No. 08-205‚ the Supreme Court validated the idea of political spending as free speech and abolished the ban on corporate political spending. Corporations
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Jonathan Diaz 1-29-13 The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision stated that corporations‚ like people‚ have a right to free speech‚ and that the spending money in campaigns is a form of expression‚ so the result was that it took down regulations against corporations spending money on advertisements directly for and against candidates. The court did not act accordingly to Rawls because I will argue that his concept of restrictions and regulations placed on liberties‚ so that everyone has
Premium Political philosophy Democracy Supreme Court of the United States
In January 2008‚ appellant Citizens United‚ a nonprofit corporation‚ released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then- Senator Hillary Clinton‚ a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections‚ Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b‚ it
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
soft money and issue advocacy. First‚ this act bans the raising of soft money by federal candidates or national parties and restricts the spending of soft money by state parties. Second‚ this act created a new election law‚ electioneering communication‚ which prohibits the use of political advertisements that “refers” to a federal candidate within thirty days of a primary election or sixty days of a general elections. The First Amendment is arguably the most controversial issue with regards to the
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Election United States Constitution
Atavia Vigil Case Brief 38-1 Federal Election Comm’n v. Beaumont Facts In 2003‚ the corporation North Carolina Right to Life‚ Inc. sued the federal Election Commission claiming that that two FEC regulations were unconstitutional. First regulation challenged the one that stops corporations from making contributions Second regulation was the one that provides an exemption from the ban for corporate contributions for particular nonprofit corporations. NCRL believes that they met the exemption to
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Kiersten Foster AP Government & Politics December 8‚ 2013 Mr. Raveret Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: First amendment rights or the government ’s cold shoulder to corporations? With the bitter wounds of British tyranny still stinging‚ the Founding Fathers thought up the first amendment. Democracy flourishes only when freedoms to express views‚ both political and those of other concerns‚ are guaranteed. What happens‚ however‚ when your own government
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution