Julia Henderson

Period 4
1/07/16
Citizens United v. F.E.C DBQ

Citizens United v. the FEC was a landmark case for free speech and campaign-finance
reform and remains controversial today. During the 2008 primary season the nonprofit Citizens
United released a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Since the film was
scheduled to show on On-Demand within 30 days of the primary, it violated the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Acts electioneering provision. Citizens United argued that the application
of the provision was unconstitutional and won the case. This set a precedent that all corporations
are entitled to the same first amendment protections as individual Americans. The Supreme
Court, in Citizens United v. the FEC, ruled constitutionally given that corporations are protected
by the right to free speech under the First Amendment and that, as according to the republican
principles of government, the majority of voters still hold the power in deciding the final
outcome of an election even with the influence of corporations factored in.
The constitutional right to freedom of speech, press and assembly favors the ruling that
corporations should be protected from the BCRAs provisions. The First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution states that Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (Document C). Moreover, the BCRA
was rightfully overturned in this follow-up case as its precedent is unconstitutional for limiting
the free speech of the people. According to Dissenting Opinion, Citizens United v. F.E.C., when
[the Framers] constitutionalized the right to free speech it was the free speech of individual
Americans that they had in mind (Document J). However, as the same Amendment states the
right to assembly, it is implied that, as according to Concurrent Opinion of the U.S. Supreme
Court, The individual persons right to speak includes the right to speak in association with

Julia Henderson
Period 4
1/07/16
other individual persons (Document K). By the same token, while the Framers may not have
included the First Amendment specifically to protect corporations, it nevertheless does, as
corporations are made up of those very same individuals who have been granted free speech. In
Federalist #10, Framer James Madison, who helped write the U.S. Constitution, asserts his
support of free speech to the American people, It could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which
is essential to all political life, because it nourishes factions (Document A). Without liberty,
todays factions, particularly interest groups, would become useless. The Constitutions promise
to protect free speech would be broken.
The republican principles of government act as checks and balances to the final influence
of corporations electioneering on the vote. According to Madison in the same Federalist paper,
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which
enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote (Document A). A corporation
would be considered a minority faction in the grand scheme of things, therefore their
electioneering within any time period shouldnt be a problem. A corporation like Citizens United
is hardly significant enough to have its films views adopted by the majority of voters, unless
voters chose to accept the information as truthful. According to Justice Kennedy in Citizens
United v FEC, Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak, and by entrusting
the people to judge what is true and what is false (Document I). Likewise, Factions should not
be forced to comply with unnecessary limitations as such outlined in the BCRA, because they
are not responsible for how their audience ends up perceiving the information it provides. Matt
Wuerker, in his political cartoon Another Dam Breaks, depicts Citizens United as a wrecking
ball going into the Supreme Court and causing a flood of money. Even so, in the right corner of
the cartoon, stand two voters who remain unaffected by the wave (Document L). This

Julia Henderson
Period 4
1/07/16
exemplifies that voters are the ones in power despite all of the money that flows into
electioneering. Further, Justice Kennedy asserts that The fact that a corporation, or any other
speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the
ultimate influence over elected officials (Document I). To reiterate, the responsibilities
corporations assume are meant to inform those who directly impact the election- voters. Hillary:
the Movie and similar forms of electioneering released within 30 days of an election attempt to
influence voters but all in all voters chose what to believe and how to vote and they should have
the opportunity to inform themselves through corporate electioneering is they so choose.
All things considered, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United and
corporations in general, was justified. According to the case of Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, which
among other things ruled that campaign finance fell under the category of constitutionally
protected free speech, Advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates for federal office is no
less entitled to protection than the discussion of political policy generally or advocacy of the
passage or defeat of legislation (Document F). This point is sound, as it is only fair that factions
who advocate are protected in all circumstances. An additional document explaining the
republican principle and how it applies to this case wouldve been helpful in writing this essay.
In essence, the Supreme Court ruled constitutionally given that the first amendment is clearly
meant to include people in assembly, or factions/corporations. In addition, the republican
principles enable voters to cast their own majority views without being manipulated by
corporations. Corporations deserve to speak freely within 30 days of an election because that is
the right they are entitled to and their influence isnt a problem since they usually arent the
majority.