Argumentative research

EY*n?u0 ttu ttGq.

Krivitz i

Citizens United: Ilow Corporations Control US Eleotions

By

Brandon Krivitz

t/

til.lG 201/7f)8.14

Jenniler Waters

Dale Dr-re: Decenrber' 4, 201 9

Argument Research Paper

Krivitz ii

Thesis statement: Although many corporations and political action committees argue that

Citizens United should not be overtrmed because the political donations of corporations are

protected by the First Amendment and because political spending does not guarantee a victory,

Citizens United should be overtumed because it stifles democracy and drowns out the voices of

regular Americans.

Outline

I. Introduction

II. Campaign finance regulation has varied greatly across the world and in the United States

and these regulations have had a range of effects on political spending and demomacy.

A. Campaign finance before Citizens United

1. Other campaign finance laws

a) BCRA

B. Overview of the Citizens Uaited Case

1. What eaused the case

a) Hillary the movie

2. What the judges decided

C. Preview of main points

D. Thesis statement

lfl. Many corporations, labor unions, and PACs argue that doflatiolts to political causes are

protected by the First Amendment.

A. Corporations are just large groups of people and groups should not lose their

righrs

l. Corporate democracy gives everyone a voice on what the corporation does

IV

Krivitz iii

2. The judges ruled that corporations have rights

B. Money is considered a form of speech and should not be regulated by the

govemment

1. Abortion example

Campaign spending does not have influence over the results ofan election.

A. Campaign spending just amplities the things that parties are saying

1. Speaker example

B. Statistics about campaign spending and results

1. Winners att{act money and not vice versa

Citizens United allows corporations and labor unions to have too much influence in

American eleclions and can cause the undermining ofdemocracy.

A. Large corporate donations to politicians can cause politicians to put the interests

ofthe large donors in front of their constituents

I . Concentrates power to a small number of individuals

a) PAC leaders, CEOs, and Rich donors

2. Politicians are more loyal to donors

a) Calling experiment

B. Corporate int€rests are often much different than Americans and these interests

could hurt the average American

1 . Large donations can drown out the voice of regular constituents

a) Statistics ofdonations by amount (above and below !i2000) and

donations bY PAC's

v1

Krivitz iv

2. Examples of corporations campaigning for deregulation even though it

may hurt American citizeos

a) Environmental rcgulations

C. Citizens United allorvs foreign citizens and carporations to have influence over

American elections.

1. This is already illegal

2. This may allorv foreign govemments or citizens to influence American

elections

a) Obama quole

3. This could also ailow foreign corporations to influence American elections

very easily

D. Summary of main points

Citizens United reduces the goverrment's power to regulate who is spending money on

and in{Iuencing elections and hurts the average American.

A. By regulating political spending by corporations, the govemment can protect the

voices of regular Americans.

1 Super PACs and rich donors outspend regular American by a very large

margin

a) Election spending statistics

2. Reducing election spending increases politician's reliance on their regular

constituents

a) More reliance on small doncrs

VII.

vm.

IX.

Krivitz v

b) Politicians must be popular with many Americans to get campaign

m0rey

B. Most American suppor.t the overtuming of the Citizens United decision

Citizens United shoulci be overtumed because the governm€nt should be able to r.egulate

money spent on elections.

A. Corporations are not provided any rights by the constitution or bili of rights

1 . Regulating corporate spending does not infringe on the first amendment

rights of the corporation's employees or shareholders.

2. The vierv ofthe corporation is often verl different from their employees.

a) An example of this is employee pay or workers rights

b) Environrnental protections

3. Corporations are not demouacies and their power is held by a small

number cfpeople

4. Traditional speech law permits for the regulating of money speot

B. Regulating money speffi allows the govemment to protect American elections

form foreign influence

Citizens United should be overtumed because corporate spending undermines

democracy, harbors comrption and does affect the results of elections.

Conclusion

A. Summary of main points

B. Restate thesis

C. Closing slatemont

Krivitz 1

In the 20i6 elections, over $6 billion was spent by candidates and political organizations

to try and sway the election in their favor and much of this money can be spent because ofthe

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission {Citizens United). Throughout the years, many

different regulations and court cases have shaped how eompanies, candidates and individuals can

dr:nate or accept money lbr political causes. Some ofthe laws and court cases that have greatly

influenced canrpaign financ e include MeConnell :t. Federal Election Commissian (McConnell v.

FEC)" the Federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), and Buckley v. tuleo. But the

most impactful case by far is Citizens United. Citizens United overtumed many previous

Supreme Court rulings irrchfiing McConnell v. FEC and deemed that the limits on corporate

political spending in the BCRA and o&er laws are unconstitutionai. Although many corporations

and political action committees argue that Citizens lJnited should not be overtumed trecause the

political donations of corporations are protected by the First Amendment afid because political

spending does not guarantee a victory, Citizens United should be oveftumed because it slifles

democracy and drowns out the voices of reguiar Americans.

Political donations and gifts have been a major topic of debate in the United States since

its inception and many different strategies have been used to try and regulate and control them"

At the core of this problem is an issue that is still debated today, do gifts to politicians without

pulpose sway the actions of the recipients ofthose gifts. The goal ofmany campaiga finance

regulations is to curb this type of behavior and limit certain parties' influence over elections'

Some of these laws came under scnrtiny in the 2010 Sr-lpreme Court Case, Citizens United. One

of these laws, the BRCA, barred the oryanization Citizens United from making a documentary

called Hiltary: The Movie because it was within 60 days of an election (Smith 139). They then

sued the Federal Election Committee for infringing on their First Amendment rights. Iu the end

Ktivitz 2

the court ruled that the BR"CA and many other iaws were unconstitutional because they, in fact,

violate the First Amendment (Simpson). The two main parties in the debate over the Citizens

United case are concemed citizens and politicians, and corpo{ations, super PACs, and business

leaders. For corporations. super PACs, and business leaders, the overtuming of Citizens United

would most likely mean the loss of their right to speak in elections and could also reduce their

profits and stock price. On the other hand, the overtuming of Citizens United would likely a1low

regular citizens to have more influence over politics and make politicians more accountable to

their constituents.

Corporalions argue that people should support Cirizens United because it protects the

First Amendment rights of corporations. Protecting the right to fiee speech is enshrined in

American democracy and is one ofthe piilars ofthe governraent. Corporations argue that

limiting political spending infringes on their and their stockholders' constitutionai rights. This is

because corporations are seen by many as a group of individuals ald these individuals should not

lose their rights when theyjoin a corporation (Bowie). This idea is supported by The Supreme

Court when they say that complex laws on corporations and people damage free speech.

Corporations also argue that their spending in elections is protected by the First Amendment

because money is a form ofspeech protected by the Constitution. The court also supports this

when saying, "speaking out in today's world often requires iarge expenditures of money, so a

ban on corporate indepeadent expenditures amounts to an outright ban on speech" (Simpson).

Another example ofwhy money equates to speech is because "if a legislature passed a law

saying it shall be illegal to spend any money to procure or provide abortion services, I think most

ofus would recognize that that rvould infringe on any right that might exist to obtain an

abortion" (Smith 144). Corporations argue that Citizens United protects their constitutional rights

Ituivitz 3

because corporations are large groups of people who still have rights and becaus€ they money

the speod is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

Corporations also argue that Citizens United should not be overtumed because political

spending does not always influence an election and only informs more voters. Informing more

voters allows the public to become more knowledgeable and make better infomed decisions in

elections. A good example of this is when Steven law says..Super pACs are only ,the

amplilication system, so . . . if rhe music is lousy, it doesn,t matter if you tum it up. It,s still not

going to sound all that convincing" (qtd. ln Price 414). Many corporations also assert that

spending in elections does not unfairly sway the election to one side. There are many examples

ofa corporation supporting and dotrating too one candidate just for another candidate to wirr. In

the 2016 presidential election, the largest super PAC, Rise to Right, used their $81 million to

support Jeb Bush, who later ended up dropping out ofthe raca because ofa lack of support from

voters (Price 413). Even though the candidate who spends the most usually win, this is most

likely because winning attracts spending and not the other way around (Koerth). Groups that

support the Citizens United decision, assert that political speech simply allows voters to make

more informed decisions and spending does not always unfairly sway elections.

On the other side, many argue that Citizens United should be overtumed because it

allows corporations and labor unions to have too much influence in American elections and can

undermine democracy. The popularity of grassroots candidates who have vowed not to take

money from corporations or the rich such as Bemie Sander shows that many Americans are

worried about big moneys influence in elections (Price 411-2). Many concemed citizens and

activists believe that, "When the money comes from too few donors that have too much

influence, that creates a distortion ofour political process" (qtd. in Price 413). A clear example

Krivitz 4

ofthis inequality is that during the first quarter of the 2016 election "More campaign donations

came from 3 Manhattan ZIP codes than from every ZIP code in the country with a rnajority

African-American residents, combined". Many argue that this inequality caused by Citizens

United undermines democracy and can drown the voices of millions of Americans while

promoling the voices of the l'ew. More evidence supporting this theory was shown in a study

where 2000 individuals requested a meeting with an elected representative, the ones who

identified themselves as political donors were five times more likely to get a meeting than those

who identified as constituents (Price 413-4). It is clear that Citizens United has damaged

American democracy and hurt many Americans for the benefit of a few,

Lastly, many argue that Citizens United is wrong because it allows tbleign sharcholders

to have influence in American elections. It is clear that the majority of Americans and politicians

support the limiting of foreign influence in American elections because it has been illegal since

2002 (*ABA Legal Fact Check: When Is It Illegal for Foreign Nationals to Influence U.S.

Elections?"). Also, many are worried that Citizens United rvill, "open the floodgates fbr special

interests-including foreign corporations-to spend without limit in our elections" (qtd. in

Doyle). Citizens United allowed for the creation ofsuper PACs that do not have to disclose their

donors and this worries many that foreign nationals may be donating to them without the public

or govemment knowing. A prime example of this is American Pacific International Capital, an

American compumy that is owned by two Chinese nationals which gave $ 1 .3 million to super

PACs (Sch,,r,arz and Lee). Ellen Weintraub also points out that "Individual fbreigners are barred

from spending to sway elections" (Weintraub). But if corporations arejust large groups ofpeople

and get their rights to speak from their shareholders then horv can the corporations contribute if it

is illegal for some oftheir shareholders to contribute to political causes in the United States. By

Krivitz 5

giving all corporations the right to donate to political causes, Citizens United may allow foreign

nationals to have influence in American elections despite the opposition ofthe American people

Citizens United should be overtumed because it interferes with the governments ability to

protect elections and does nct infringe on the Constitution. In the ruling of the Citizens United

Supreme Court case, the.iudges ruled that restuicting corporate and union spending on political

campaigns infringes on the first amendment (Kairys). It is a valid argument to try and defend

constitutional rights, but many argue that limiting the spending ofcorporations does not infringe

on the First Amendment because nowhere in the constitution does it say that corporations are

guaranteed rights. Even ifthese laws did infringe on the rights ofcorporations, many Americans

believe that upholding democracy and fair elections is more important than protecting the rights

ofcorporations. This can be seen by the fact that 78 percent of Americans think that Citizens

United should be overturned (Price 416). By overturning Citizens United, elections rvould

become more fair and regular people would have their voices restored in elections. Additionally,

most shareholders do not have the power to control the speech of the corporation so why should

their right to speak be extended to the corporation if they cannot even speak in the corporation

(Joo 346). Considering this it is clear that shmeholders should not extend their personal rights to

the corporation because oftheir conflict of interest and limited power.

The Citizens United decision should also be overtumed because it harbors corruption

undermines democracy, and sways elections in favor of the rich. Comiption creates distrust in

the govemment and damages democracy. Despite this, there are many rvays for companies to

legally bribe politicians, the goverment cannot regulate this because of Citizens United

(Bentley). Many politicians are offered shares ofan initial public offering by a company which

are not available to the general public, these shares are almost guaranteed to go up in value and is

Krivitz 6

a clear example of corruption (May). Even if political spending had zero infllrence over

elections, it would stiil be important to overtum Citizens United so that this corruption could be

stopped. Secondly, even though it is important for Americans to be well informed nhen voting,

Citizens United allorvs corporations to spend their vast sums ofmoney on elections and prevents

a "meritocracy ofideas" because it causes ideas to dominato by money spent and not merit

(Bentley). Even though there are some examples ofelections r.vhere the candidate rvho spends

more loses, it is clear that money spent on elections does have an impact and can also srvay the

decisions ofcurrently elected politicians, damaging democracy even further. Additionally, if

corporations argue that their political spending does not influence elections, then why lvould they

spend so much money on elections for no gain. Citizens United also hurts small businesses and

stifles competition because it allows large corporations to have an unfair advantage by lobbying

politicians in their fhvor, therefore, hurting many businesses for the benefit ofa few ('Granting

Corporations Bill of fughts Protections Is Not "Pro-business''). In summary, the Citizens United

decision benefits a fe*,while hurting many, allows corporations to have undue influence over

elections, and harbors corruption that damages the United States.

Despite the fact that many corporations and proponents of Citizens United argue Citizens

United infringes on the first amendment and does not affect elections. It is clearly shown tlrat it

hurts regular Americans, damages democracy, harbors comrption and hurt business while also

not infringing on the Constitution. Even though corporations claim that Citizens Uflited protects

their rights, overtuming it would clearly protect the rights ofregular citizens and American

democracy. Fixing this issue is vitally important to help restore democracy and trust in the

government. This case is a good example of why many lose trust or faith in the govemment and

it is paramount that the govemment overturns this case to restore trust and benefit America.

Kivitzl

Works Cited

"ABA Legal Fact Check: When Is It Illegal for Foreign Nalionals to Influence [J.S. Elections?"

La# & Crime. American Bar Association. 31 Jan. 2018. Web. 28 Nov. 2019.

Bentley, Nick. "What Is Citizens United?: An Introduction." Reclaim Democracy! .23 !an. 2016.

Web- 28 Nov. 2019-

Bowie, Nikolas. "Corporate Personhood v. Corporate Statehood." Ilarvard Ltw Revierl,. Han ard

University. l0 May 2019" Web- 28 Nov.20l9.

Doyle, Kenneth P. "Campaign Finance Reform Is Still Necessary After the Citizens United

Ruling." Opposing Viewpoints (2010): N. pag. Gale In Context: Opposing Vicwpoints.

Web.l1 Sept. 2019.

"Granting Corporations Bill of Rights Protections Is Not 'Pro-Business."' AMIBA.5 Jan-2012.

Web. 28 Nov. 2019.

Joo. Thomas W. "Corporate speech & the rights of others." Conslitutional Commentary (2015\:

p. 335-60. Gale In Context: Opposing liewpoinls. Web. 1l Sept. 2019.

Kairys, David. "The Citizens United Decision That Supporls Super PAC Spending Is Flawed."

Super PACs (2014): N. pag. Gale In Conrext: Opposing Viewpoints. Web. 17 Oct. 2019.

Koerth, Maggie. "How Money Affects Elections." FiveThit O,Eighr. FiveThirtyEight. l0 Sept.

2018" Web.22 Nov.2019.

Krivilz 8

May, Matthew. "Review: Throw Them All Out by Peter S chweizer." American Thinker. 17 Dec.

201l. Web. 28 Nov. 2019.

Price, Tom. "Campaign Finance;' CQ Researcher 6 (2016): 409-32. CQ Researcher. Web. 11

Sept. 2019.

Schwarz, Jon, and Lee Fang. "Three Paths Citizens United Created for Foreign Money to Pour

into U.S. Elections." The lktercept.3 Aug. 2016. Web. 22 Nov. 2019.

Simpson, Steve. "Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in Ameri ca." Civil Liberties

(2013): N. pag. Gale In Context: Opposing Yiewpoints. Web. 11 Sept. 2019.

Smilh, Bradley A. "Campaign Finance and Free Speech: Finding the Radicalism in Citizens

LJnited V. Fec;' Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 41.1 (2018): 139-151.

EBSCOhost. Web. 19 Sept. 2019.

Weintraub, Ellen L. "Taking on Citizens Unite d." New York Time.s 30 Mar. 2016. PraQuest.

Web.2l Sept.2019.