Ali Reynolds

Period 4
Wal-Mart for President
The Citizens United v. F.E.C ruling set us on path towards Wal-Mart as our president.
Citizens United v. F.E.C declared that corporations are people too, meaning that one day they too
can run for president. This is unacceptable. We must take our democracy back from the
businesses and give it to the people. It is unconstitutional to allow corporations and monopolies
to have more of a say in the government than citizens. Additionally, businesses should not be
given the chance to corrupt the government just because they have more money than the average
person. It is not free speech to allow some people to have more of it than others. The Citizens
United v. F.E.C case started because Citizens United, a company that makes documentaries, tried
to air a documentary about Hillary Clinton within 30 days of a primary, which is against F.E.C.
regulations. The documentary also had contributions from companies that were above the
F.E.C.s set limit for political contributions. The Supreme Court declared both of these
unconstitutional, citing the First Amendments free speech guarantee. The Supreme Court did not
rule constitutionally in the case of Citizens United v. F.E.C as it gives more power to the
corporations than the people and the corporations can then corrupt our government.
The Citizens United v. F.E.C ruling gives more freedom of speech to corporations than
the people. The concurrent opinion in the Citizens United v. F.E.C case, or the opinion supporting
the ruling, pointed out the ridiculousness of giving rights to non-persons at all saying, All the
provisions the Bill of Rights set forth the rights of individual men and women--not, for example,
of trees and polar bears (Document K). The rights set out for by the Constitution are specifically
for citizens and nothing else, including corporations. The Citizens United v. F.E.C ruling, as
stated by the Supreme Court Justices in favor of the ruling, also established that money is speech
saying, All speakers use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their

Ali Reynolds
Period 4
speech (Document I). This means that in order to be able to get ones message out to the world,
they need money. According to the First Amendment, written in the Bill of Rights by the
Founders of the Unites States, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
(Document C). Abridging means limiting and by adding the necessity of money in order to get
free speech, the ruling limits the ability of the poorer citizens of our country to engage in free
speech. In an 1889 political cartoon entitled The Bosses of the Senate, Joseph Keppler, depicts
a government of the monopolists, by the monopolists, for the monopolists while the peoples
door is closed (Document D). Clearly, nothing has changed since then, as today big business still
dominates our political culture while the poorer citizens continue to be limited by their lack of
money. This shows that the corporations and monopolies rule the government while the regular
citizens dont have any input. Businesses shouldnt have more of a say in the government than
the people. Teddy Roosevelt affirms this sentiment in his New Nationalism Speech saying,
Every special interest is entitled to justice but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress
(Document E). Roosevelt means that just because they have more money doesnt mean that
corporations should have more of a say, or more speech, than the regular people. This increase of
power leads to the corruption of the government.
The main consequence of unlimited speech for corporations is corruption. Teddy
Roosevelt said in his New Nationalism speech, the great special business interests too often
control and corrupt the man and methods of our government (Document E). Even in 1910,
when Roosevelt made that speech, corruption of the government by big businesses was a
problem and it is still a problem today. The dissenting opinion of the four Supreme Court justices
who voted in favor of the F.E.C. in Citizens United v. F.E.C case echo this sentiment by saying,
Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majoritys apparent belief is that quid pro quo

Ali Reynolds
Period 4
arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influence does not accord with the
theory or reality of politics (Document J). A quid pro quo arrangement is an equal exchange,
where each side gets something they want, and to demarcate is to set boundaries or limits. This
statement is saying that the belief that deals between politicians and corporations cannot be
separated from corruption in the current system of government. The dissenting Supreme Court
justices go on to say, A democracy cannot function when its constituent members believe laws
are being bought and sold (Document J). The people know that the government is corrupt and
this is hurting the democracy. For it to be able to function properly, all corruption must be
banished from the political system.
Some people may argue that this is the society we live in today, where money is
necessary for speech and there is no getting around that. As the quote from the ruling stated
above, everyone uses money to get his or her word out and corporations should be allowed to do
the same (Document I). But this doesnt have to be true. If the F.E.C. instituted public funding of
campaigns, each person would be required to give a small amount of money to fund the political
campaigns and this is the only money the politicians can use for their campaign. Corporations are
not people and therefore they would be entirely cut out of the deal, and the races would be more
even. The politicians wont be reliant on money from the businesses, which will lessen, or even
stop all together, the corruption of our government by corporations. Others might argue that this
also allows labor unions to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns, but they have
far less money at their disposal, according to a New York Times Editorial (Document N). The
richer people may argue that they have more money because of hard work, but it is far harder for
immigrants and minorities to get high paying jobs, or jobs at all, than it is for whites and
immigrants have had less time in the country to work their way up the corporate ladder.

Ali Reynolds
Period 4
The Citizens United v. F.E.C ruling will have many consequences on the United States
democracy. The ruling gives more power to corporations than it does to the people by requiring
money for speech. This infringes upon the right to free speech granted by the First Amendment
of the Constitution. Corporations get more of a say in the government than the citizens do. This
fosters the corruption of the government. Businesses give politicians money and the politicians
vote for or create legislation that will help the businesses, instead of focusing on the needs of the
people. This leads to the peoples mistrust of the government, which in turn hurts democracy.
The system needs public funding of campaigns in order to dramatically reduce, or abolish all
together, the corruption of the government by corporations. Just because the poor are less
wealthy than the rich does not mean that they shouldnt have equal rights and equal, unlimited,
free speech. Two sources that would have been helpful in writing this essay would be the
opening statements from each side of the case, Citizens United and the F.E.C. This would explain
the arguments of each side and help put the other documents into the context of the case itself. In
any case, the political system needs to be fixed and The Citizens United v. F.E.C ruling should be
overturned. If corporations are allowed to have equal or more power than the people, then their
role in the government will continue to increase until one day, a corporation such as Wal-Mart
will be president.