Informative Research

Krivitz i

Citizens United: Does It Protect First Amendment Rights

or Undermine Democracy?

By

lo'7 ENGrl/70834

Jennifer Waters

Date Due:

Informative Research Paper

Artrrtuo

Wd 'n*$W k

$+iloukNo*t.q..

Krivitz ii

Outline

Main ldea Statement: Although many corporations and political action committees argue that

Cit2ens United should not be ovortumed because the political donations of corporations are

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

many citizens argue that Citizens United should be reversed because the unrestricted spending of

corporations on political campaigning undermines dernocracy and causes politicians to put the

interests of their biggest donors instead oftheir constituents.

I. Introduction

il. 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 democracy.

A. Campaign finance before Citizens United

1. Gifts and donations in early America

a , Ben Franklin example

B. Overview of the Citizens United Case

1 . What caused the case

q, Hillary the movie

2. What the judges decided

m. The main parties involved in the campaign finance debate are men and women in

Congress, the Suprerne Court, corporations, labor unions, political action committees, and

American voters.

A. Directly affected

1. Politicians

Krivitz iii

IV

2. Corporations

3. Labor unions

4. Political action committees

5. American voters

B. Indirectly affected

I . American voters

2. AII lmerican citizens

Parties that argue to overtum Citizens United claim that unlimited donations by

corporations allow them to have unfair inJluence over elections and restricting the

spending of corporations on political campaigrs does not infringe on anyone's first

amendment rights.

A. Large donations by corporations and super PAC s cause politicians to put the

interests of the large donors in front of their constituents

i. A small amouot of people hold an extremely large amount of power

2. Lwge amounts of money drown out the voice of constituents

3. Donations are often seen as a favor that needs to be repaid.

a. Legal "bribes"

4. Politicians are more loyal to donors

a- Calling experiment

B. Restricting the spending ofcorporations on political campaigns doesn't infringe

on anyone's fitst &nendment rights.

v

Krivrtz iv

1. A corporation doesn't have the same rights as a person and restricting their

spending doesn't restrict the f,rst finendment rights of its employees or

shareholders.

2. Employees and shareholders are still free to donate to any political

campaign themselves.

a . The view ofthe corporation is often very different from their

employees. Ex. higher pay for employees and workers rights

3. Corporations are not afforded the same constitutional rights as citizens

C. 'fuling that all shareholders of corporation$3 right to fund political

campaigns would allorv foreigners to have an influence over American elections.

1. This is illegal

2. This may allow foreign govemments to influence American elections

a, Obama quote

3. This could also allow foreign corporationsrinfluence in our elections

Large corporations and labor unions argue that political spending is protected by free

speech and does not determine the results ofelections.

A. Campaign Finance laws infringe on the First Amendmenl

I . Large groups of people still have rights

a, Citizens United Ruling

2. Money is viewed as a form ofspeech and therefore is protected by the frst

Amendment

a. Abortion example from the article

Krivitz v

b. Taking away the right to spend is almost the same as taking away

the right to sPeak

B. Political spending does not influence an election if the people do not like the

candidate.

l. Jeb Bush example

2. Data about political spending and election results

q, 1970 election example

3. Amplilication system exampie

VI. The main things at stake for the parties involved in this debate are corporate profits,

politicians campaign funds, more fair elections, and the possible election ofa different

elected official.

A. Corporations and Labor Unions

1. Election of an official that does not line up with their values

a. An official may legislate on something that cuts into a

corporation's profits or hufr the rights of rvorkers

2. Lost profits or pay for workers

a , Corporations may have to lay off workers because of their reduced

profits

b. A decrease in profits will lead to a decrease in the stock price and

hurt the economy

3. More regulations

B. Politicians

l. Fewer campaign funds

Krivitz vi

a, A law that limits campaign donations will reduce all available

campaign funds

2. Politicians will have to please their constituents more for donations

3. A limit on spending may hurt new candidates

a. Incumbent's advantage

b. Established connections

4. Conservative vs Liberal spending

a, Liberal candidates would most likely benefit from a law that

reduces corporate spending

C, Voters

VII. Conclusion

1. Fairer elections

a. Elected offrcials will be more accountable to the people and will

have to have the full support of the people to stay in office

b. Elected officials will be more loyal to constituents

2. Politicians will rely more on constituents for donations

3. More consumer protections against corporations

a. Politicians will be more likely to legislate against corporations now

that they do not receive large donations from them

Krivitz 1

The argument about ifand how campaign spending should be regulated has been debated

since the inception of the United States. Over the history ofthe United States, many different

laws and court cases have shaped how campaign finance works today. Some ofthe laws and

court cases that have greatly influenced campaign finance laws include McConnell v. Federal

Election Commission (McConnell v. FEC), the Federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

(BCRA), and Buckley v. Valeo. Btrt the most significant Case by far is Citizens United v. Federal

Elections Commission (C-itizens United). Citizens United overfumed many previous Supreme

Court rulings incltding McConnell v. FEC and deemed that iimiting corporation's donations to

political causes is unconstitutional. Although many corporations and political action committees

argue that Citizcns United should not be overtumed because the political donations of

corporations are protected by the First Amendment and because political spending does not

guarantee a victory, many citizens argue that Citizens United should be revemed because the

unrestricted spending of corporations on political car:rpaigning undernines democraey and

causes politicians to put the interests of their biggest donors instead of their constituents.

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

its inception and ma.ny different straJegies have been used to try and rrgulate these things.

During the founding of the country, when Benjamin Franklin was depa(ing France as a diplomat

for the United States, Louis XVI gave him "A portrait of King Louis, surrounded by 408

diamonds . . . and held in a golden case of a kind sometimes called a snut'f box" (Teachout 1).

This was of concern to many other people in America because "We expect that gifts lead to some

warmtl and generosity, toward the giver, ifnot official favors. Such private generosity, however,

couid violate the posture that the diplomat is supposed to have towards the leadership ofthe host

country" (Teachout 3). This problem intro<iuces a problem that is still debated today, do gifts to

politicians without any demands from the giver still sway the actions of the recipients ofthose

Krivilz 2

gilis. Thc -e.oiri

c,i' man;t e anipaigir l-uiancr t'eg,ilaiir-'ns is to cur'5 this ti pr: oi bcira.' ior and ii;rrit

parties' in{luence in elections. Some of these laws came under scrutiny in the 201 0 Supreme

Corul Case. Citizens Llnitetl t,. Federal Eleclions Commi.ssion 'Ihe organization Citizens United

ll:r-s harrtrt-<1 tiom trakirg a docunteuiarv eail,ed ttliittrl'; 'l'hc ,l{ut'it l:retiiiise ii rvas rvii}in iiO

days of ar.r election ard rvas supported by a corporalion (Smith l39). In the end. the court nrled

that this \!-as unconslitutional because it violated the First Amendmenl (Simpson)'

-l'hc main stekchoiiicrs inr'olvcii iit th': e:rilp;iign linei:ee richatc are incri and *'oincn itr

Congress, the Supreme L'ourt" colporations. Iabor rtnions, political action courmittees' and

American voters. Politicians and lawmakers have been vocal on both sides ofthe debate' but

thel hare passcd man3'campaign financc rcgulaiions in thc pasi inclliding thc Bipartisan

Carnpaign Reforln Act oi 2002(BCRA) (Price 41 9). Many senntors havc advocalecl lbr campaigL.r

finance relorm including presiclential candidate Bertie Sanders (Price 412) Despite this' manl'

ril'thc lau's passerl Lry f lriigress hlyc bcEir overlurncd h1 th,"- Suprcnrc C{r r-i Tile Sriprenrc Coiiri

has struck down parts of the IICR-A and maly other campaign tlnance larvs whioh has reduced

Congress's power to regulate carnpaign finance (Price 412). If Citizens United were to be

i'r'ie*ui'ned ii ur;ulil hc likcl;'thai i'iiore icgulalions uotild be pass*d bec:ttse the majoriil'o1'

Americans are against the Citizens Linited decision (Price 416). Votcrs aiso have a large

involvement in the campaign finance debate by choosing who the-v elect This can be seen by the

i::irpiilariti of Donrilil Trunrp and Bci'nie S;inileis iii the 2t]16 i.;icsiiiential tliciion rrho bo'Lli

f,urdetl their campaigns with their own money or through small individual donors (Price 41 I )'

The trvo main parties in rhe debate over the Citizens llnitcd Case and campaign spending

rr-c ccrnceucd citize irs attd pr.riiticians. aud cotporalions. sui'rer i'Atis. iinci iidvilcate s ol'lico

specch. Those who oppose ihe citizens Llnited decision give manl' reasons ftrr tlieir opposition'

First. they worry that too much money in politics can corrupt democracy' Richard I-Iasen says'

Krivitz 3

"When the money comes from too few donors that have too much influence, that creates a

distortion of our political process" (qtd. in Price 413). Many worry that allowing unlimited

corporate donations, the voices of regular Americans will be drowned out (Weintraub). Senator

Lindsey Graham also worries that, "We are t,.rning eampaigns over to about 100 people in this

country, and are going to be able to advocate their cause at the expense ofyour cause" (qtd. ln

Price 414). Evidence for this was shown in a study where 2000 individuals requested a meeting

with an elected representative, the ones who identifred themseives as political donors rvere five

times more likely to get a meeting (Price 414). Finally, many view large contributions to

campaigns as so-called "legal bribes" because "It's pretty tough to tease out tlte person who says.

'Because you support this tarii'f that really benefits my industry, I'm going to give your

campaign a bunch of money,' liom the guy who says, 'Ifyou support this tariff, I'm goilg to

give you a bunch ofmoney"' (Smith 145-46).

In the ruling ofthe Citizens United Supreme Couft case, thejudges ruled that restricting

corporate and union spending on political campaigns inftinges on the First Amendment (Kairys).

Many who oppose the Citizens United decision argue that limiting the spending of corporations

does not infringe on the First Aniendment because eorporations do not have the same rights as

citizens. However, many argue that restricting the rights ofa corporation to donate to political

causes does not infringe on the rights of shareholders or employees because the interest of a

company is often very different ftom the interest of the ernployees and shareholders (Joo 346).

Thomas Joo argues that corporations' shareholders do not hav€ significant power to choose what

speech the corporation makes and therefore their rights cannot be infringed on (346).

Additionally, the Supreme Court argued that money-should he viewed as a form ofspeech. but

opponents of this decision disagree because "Traditional speechJaw analysis would separate the

speech from the conduct (or "nonspeech") elements of campaign spending and donation and

Krivitz 4

allow considerable leeway to regulate the latter" (Kairys).

Finally, many argue that giving all shareholders the rights of free speech gives foreign

shareholders an undue influence over American elections and, as President Barack Obama said,

"open the floodgates for special interests-including foreign corporations--.to spend rvithout

limit in our elections" (qtd. In Doyle). Ellen Weintraub points out that, "lndividual foreigners are

barred from spending to sway elections." But ifcorporations get their rights to speak from their

shareholders, it raises the question of lrow the corporations can conr-ribute if some shareholders

are specifically barred fiom spending in American elections. This has many worried that foreign

nationals and corporations may be able to have undue influence over American elections

(Weintraub).

Corporations who support Citizens United often argue that their spending is protected by

the First Amendment because of individual rights and corporate democracy. They argue that

individuals should not lose rheir right to free speech simply because they join a corporate enlity

(Simpson). The Supreme Court said that "such complex laws, the necessity ofhiring lawyers to

interpet them, and the lawsuits to which they lead inevitably chill free speech" (Simpson). The

court also argued that, "Speaking out in today's world oflen requires large expenditures of

money, so a ban on corporate independent expenditures amounts to an outright ban on speech"

(Simpson). Bradley Smith suggests that money should be protected by the First Amendment

because "if a legislature passed a law saying it shall be illegal to spend any money to procure or

provide abortion services, I thinl( most ofus would recognize that that would infringe on any

right that might exist to obtain an abortion" (Smith 144). Additionally, former senator Eugene

Mcearthy, says that large political donations increase democracy because, "l'here is clear

historical evidence that large contributors have been highly important in supporting controversial

and maverick political movements" (qtd. In Price 425). David Keating also points out that by

limiting politica! spending. ilcutrhents and pccple *'ith nante recogniiion get a hrrgc acl"'utage

(qtd. In Price 425).

Another main point argued b1' those u'ho support the Citizens lJnited case is that political

spending docs not air'r'ai's influcncc an eleclicn and *nlf ini"orms r'oiers abilut r'"'hat thcl mal' not

knorv. llhere are many cxamples ofone candidate outspending another bu1 still losing the

eleclion. In the 2016 election the largest super PAC used their funds to support Jeb Bush. who

later en{led his caurp;:igu betause o1'a l;rek r}f l olcr supl ort (l\'ice 4l 3 ). In rn*irv senatoriai.

gubernatorial, and house races, there are plenty of examples ofthe loser oulspending the u iutler

including 16 governors. 206 house seats and halfofthe senate seats in the 1970 election

(l)iatrond 21-23). Manl' supcr PA['s a]so beliei'c that spcech b-'i corpriralions' labor rinicns' and

super PACs siniply gives the votet more ir,lbrmation and does not unlairly sway thc electiolls'

Steven l-aw. thc president ofa large super PAC said "Super PACs are only 'the amplification

s,,-'steln. so . . . ii-ihe nusic is lousy. it dcresn't mat1tsr ii-)ou 1[t.n il up- lr's still nol goilg tc sound

ail that convincing" (qtd. ln Price 414). Groups that support the Clitizens lJnited decision assert

that their political speech simply allows voters to become more informed and does not unfairl)'

influence clcctiolts.

There are serious concerns lbr ntat js at slake for parties on both sides of this debate' On

onc lrand. it is important to protect the rights and profits of corporations. lfpolitical donations by

cr-I?omtions. ullions, and supcr PA[is $crc !irnitcd it could iiad 10 tirc clecticn ot'candidates thai

pass legislation r.vhich could hud corporations and the econorlly. The passing of regulations that

limit election spending would also likcly benefit liberais and hufi conservative because the

majorirl' ol cotpot'atc motie) goes to c(uservalile poliricians (Price'113). f'ariclidatcs troiiid rlsrt

lind it more ditlicult to i'und their campaigns therefore giving incumbents an advantage over

newcomers (Smith). On thc other hand. it is also very important to prolect the integritl of

Krivitz 5

Krivitz 6

democrac,u- and ntake suro the t'r'rices of'al1 Americans are heard h-v politicians. Iicorporations

are free to donate money to any political cause. politicians may be inclined to only cater to the

demands to those who donate to their cause and could lead to the decline of American

democracl' (Price 425). Politicians coLtld beconre le,ss reliiurt on their ccn-stituents lor suppon.

Policies that hurt the public could be passed because they help large donors,

Politicians and the Supreme Court are tasked with protecting their constituents while also

protecring the rights oi-cverYone and boosting the econom,,-. Ir4any politiciaDs algde that b]'

plotecting the intel'ests ol corporations they are protecting the eoonom"v, which in turn benetlts

their constituenls. However. many others argue that corporate mone,v is corrupting democrac,v

and is dro*ning out the voices o1'thc constituents. As litng as {hele arc or!.anizations that are

w'illing to try and intluence elections r'vith large amounts oimoney, this will continue 10 be a

heated debate by poiiticians, voters. colporations, PACs, and labor unions.

Krivitz 7

Works Cited

Diamond, Robert A., and Stanley N. Wellbom. Dollar Politics. Washington, D.C.:

Congressional Quarterly, 1 971. Print.

Doyle, Kenneth P. "Campaign Finance Reform Is Still Necessary ,^,fter the Cilizens United

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

Web.l l Sept. 2019.

Joo, Thomas W. "Corporate speech & the rights of others." Constitutional Commentary (2015):

p. 335-60. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoinls. Web. 11 Sept. 2019.

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

Super PACs (2014): N. pag. Gale In Context: Opposing Vtewpoints. Web. 17 Oct.20l9.

Price, Tom. "Campaign Finance." CQ Researcher 6 (2016):409-32. CQ Researcher. Web. 1l

Sept.2019.

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

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

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

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

EBSCOhost. Web. 19 Sept.2019.

---. 'The lncumbent's Bane: Citizens United and the 20l0 Election." lAa Street Journal25 Jart.

201 I, Eastern ed.: A15. ProQuest. Web. 19 Sept. 2019.

Teachout, Zephyr. Cotuption in America: from Benjamin Franklin's Snuf Box to Cilizens

United. 2014. Print.

Weintraub, Elien L. "Taking on Citizens United." New ktrk Times 30 Mar. 2016. ProQuest.

Web.21 Sept.2019.