Elias Monastersky

Pd. 3

Citizens United v. FEC: DBQ

Free speech is a part of what makes the United States a republican government.
To take away the freedom of speech or any of the other freedoms given in the first
amendment for that matter would be to challenge the constitution, the very document that
makes this country free. The Supreme Courts ruling in 2010s, Citizens United v. FEC is
constitutional, directly supports the United States republican government, and promotes
the idea of free speech through a ruling directly supporting the founding fathers views.
The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban free speech through the
limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions. The
first amendment states that, Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances (Doc. C). Citizens United, a nonprofit
group, wanted to air a documentary that would directly violate the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA), which states that one cannot broadcast ads that name a federal
candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election. This ban
in itself is unconstitutional as it violates the right of free speech and press. The Supreme
Courts ruling to repeal that is a just one. According to Thomas Jefferson, To punish
these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty.
The basis of our government being the opinion of the people,(Doc B). This idea set
fourth by one of our founding fathers, that the opinion of the people is so important, is a
key aspect of the republican government. This concept was implemented in the Supreme

Courts ruling as limiting the publics view and censoring information would suppress the
safeguard of public liberty. To censor this documentary would be to effectively prevent a
potential key piece of knowledge from reaching a viewer. Through an opinion piece
written in the Wall Street Journal, the idea is emphasized that, laws designed to control
money in politics often bleed into censorship, and that violates core first amendment
principles (Doc. M). If a piece of information is kept from viewers in which there
could be evidence that is hostile to their interests, than this is considered censorship and
is exactly what the first amendment was intended to stop.
The 1976 ruling of Buckley v. Valeo shows that a limit on the amount of
money one can spend on political communication proves detrimental to the quantity and
quality of said communication. This only supports the fact that because money use is
limited, so is the information flow, and this blocking of information is most certainly
censorship. As a landmark case, its basic principles were used heavily when ruling
Citizens United v. FEC. The ruling of Buckley v. Valeo explains that because almost
every mode of communication in todays society requires the spending of money, A
restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political
communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression
(Doc. F). The dissenting opinion of the case is that through corporations being ruled as
people, it goes against the framers idea of free speech being limited to an individual
person. The dissenting opinion states that, [M]embers of the founding generation held a
cautious view of corporate power and a narrow view of corporate rightsandthey
conceptualized speech in individualistic terms (Doc. J). This opinion does not realize
that corporations are made of people, and those people are allowed to have opinions. The

concurrent opinion makes that point when it explains that, It [the speech of a political
party] is the speech of many individual Americans, who have associated in a common
cause, giving the leadership of the party the right to speak on their behalf. The association
of individuals in a business corporation is no different (Doc. K). A political party is
made up of the same Americans that make up corporations, so why are they seen in
different lights? Even so, there is no reason why the right of free speech should be taken
away based on the opinion that it should be interpreted in individualistic terms. The
Citizens United mission statement shows their true nature as a corporation. They seek to
educate the public, which is important, as information is crucial, especially during
election time. Their mission statement directly states that, Citizens United is well known
for producing high-impact, sometimes controversial, but always fact-based
documentaries filled with interviews of experts and leaders in their fields (Doc. G).
This statement shows that this specific corporation only wants to have the free speech and
money to make an educational film. While this film may reflect the bias of Citizens
United, the mission statement does say that the documentaries are fact-based; in other
words, this true information should not be kept from public consumption.
The republican government that the United States has is one that holds freedom
extremely highly. The freedom of speech is one that should be guaranteed to everyone,
even corporations. The decision in Citizens United v. FEC is constitutional as it shows
the true meaning of free speech and how it applies to everyone. A document containing
politicians views of the ruling could help create a more fleshed out description of
constitutional accuracy of the ruling by providing a more detailed and diverse public
opinion.