Ben Abramson

Period 3
Citizens United v F.E.C. DBQ

In the 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama challenged the Supreme Courts
decision in the case of Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee (F.E.C.). Citizens
United, a non-profit conservative organization, attempted to run a political advertisement critical
of Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election. According to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act (BCRA), political advertisements are prohibited within 60 days of an election, making the
Citizens United advertisement illegal. This was challenged by Citizens United and went all the
way to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the court correctly ruled in favor of Citizens
United, because the First Amendment protects free speech, money is considered speech, and
corporations are associations of people.
The First Amendment of the Constitution grants the freedom of speech to all people in
America, making censorship illegal. The First Amendment states that, Congress shall make no
law abridging the freedom of speech (Document C). Speech is defined in many ways,
including political participation through broadcast media. When the F.E.C. ruled that Citizens
United could not run an advertisement, they restricted the right to free speech. Justice Kennedy, a
Supreme Court justice since 1988, wrote in the majority opinion, If the First Amendment has
any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for
simply engaging in public speech (Document I). The framers of the Constitution firmly believed
that the freedom of speech should be an unalienable right and therefore made the First
Amendment to protect it. Expressing political views through a documentary cannot be censored,
making the 60 day rule unconstitutional, and the Supreme Courts decision correct.

Part of the Supreme Courts ruling was that money can be considered speech. The 1976
Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, struck down many provisions of the Federal Election
Campaign Act (FECA). The argument of the majority opinion was based on the First
Amendment and the freedom of speech. The court interpreted it as money can be considered
speech, as explained in the per curiam opinion, This is because virtually every means of
communicating ideas in todays mass society requires the expenditure of money (Document F).
This established the precedent that speech is money and since speech cannot be restricted,
neither can money. Producing the advertisement and broadcasting it cost money, which is being
used for political purposes. Not allowing people to express themselves can also limit democracy
and infringes on peoples individual rights. The Wall Street Journal, a major economic magazine
wrote, The ban on corporate expenditures had a substantial, nationwide chilling effect on
political speech (Document M). The founders believed that everyone should have the right to
participate in politics. Money has now become an inherent part of politics that must be allowed
instead of restricted in order to uphold the ideals of freedom in democracy.
Another reason behind the Supreme Courts correct decision was the idea that
corporations are associations of people and therefore get the same rights as individuals. The
concurrent opinion in Citizens United v. F.E.C. by Justice Scalia reiterates this idea, The
individual persons right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual
persons (Document K). Many people have been critical of corporations use of money to
influence the political system, but corporations are made of people, giving them the same
individual rights. Corporations should then, be able to make unlimited contributions to
campaigns and other political matters. Not giving them basic individual rights would go against

the values of democracy where every person should be equal and the Supreme Court has made
sure that these values are upheld.
There have been many opponents and critics of the Supreme Courts decision. The most
passionate response has come from the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens. He believes that
the founding fathers did not think that corporations had the right to free speech, It was the free
speech of individual Americans that they had in mind (Document J). While the founders may
not have been able to predict the rise of corporations and their influence in politics, corporations
are made up of groups of people. Not allowing corporations to spend money for political
purposes violates the rights of every person working there, as well as the corporation as a whole.
Other arguments against the ruling have been that corporations will almost be able to vote and
that they will corrupt politics with their money. Teddy Roosevelt, in his New Nationalism
speech, criticizes corporations influence in politics, saying, Every special interest is entitled to
justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation
in any public office (Document E). Many people, including Roosevelt are worried about
corporations having too much influence, but being able to spend money is not the same as
voting, or having representation in public office. Expressing opinions is an individuals right
under the Constitution and using money to achieve these goals is still protected. The corporations
are not forcing people to vote or committing voter fraud, they are simply expressing their
opinion, hoping others will see their point of view. While there are concerns about the influence
of corporations on politics, it is permitted under the Constitution and the ideals of democracy.
Another document that would have been helpful is quotes from corporations saying that
they should have the same rights as individuals. The founders created the Constitution in order to
uphold the ideals of freedom and individual rights in the United States. The First Amendment

gives every person the right to freedom of expression. These rights should extend to corporations
as well because they are made up groups of individuals. Since Buckley v. Valeo established that
money is speech, corporations should be afforded the right to free speech and therefore free to
spend money whenever they want. The five justices of the majority took these factors into
account and made the correct decision based on the values of the Constitution and other legal
precedents.