Olivia Gonzalez

Period 1
Citizens United v. FEC DBQ
If you were to win $900 million in the powerball lottery tonight, wouldnt you want to
use it to get the presidential candidates to listen to you? Thanks to the 2010 Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling, you can donate as much as you
want to the candidate of your choice. Prior to this decision, the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold, had put in place regulations to
restrict how much money people were allowed to donate to campaigns. Citizens United v.
FEC overturned many of these limitations, by ruling that expressing ones self through
money is speech. The Court also decided that corporations are entitled to the same
freedom of speech as individuals, thus any attempts to limit their donations would violate
the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC was
constitutional because money is speech, and the government is not allowed to control
speech, and corporations are made up of people, so they get the same freedom of speech
as individuals.
One of the main rulings of Citizens United is that money is a form of speech. Freedom
of speech is granted to all U.S. citizens though the First Amendment. The First
Amendment states that, Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
Government for a redress of grievances (Document C). Most would agree that
expressing ones political views is protected speech, but there is much debate about
whether or not donating money is protected under the First Amendment. Take a look at it

this way. The easiest way for a person or group to make his or her voice heard in politics,
besides running for office, is to donate to campaigns. Money is a means through which
individuals and corporations can express themselves and their views, meaning that
restrictions reduce the extent to which people can discuss issues. Just like putting a
Hillary Clinton sign in ones yard voices ones support for her, so does donating to her
campaign, in fact the donation is probably more effective. Money is essential to winning
an election, because building a national campaign takes hundreds of staff members,
advertisements, and a lot of travelling. Buckley v. Valeo, one of the first campaign finance
cases, ruled that, Advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates for federal office is no
less entitled to protection under the First Amendment than the discussion of political
policy generally or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation (Document F).
Helping out a presidential candidate financially is just as much entitled to protection of
freedom of speech as talking about the upcoming election at a dinner party. The Justices
who ruled that money is speech did so justly, because they are not self-benefitting from
this decision, seeing that they do not have to run campaigns.
If money is speech, then the government is not allowed to try and control peoples
donations. In the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, the Court describes government
censorship as, ...when government seeks to use its full power... to command where a
person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it
uses censorship to control thought (Document I). Censorship is unlawful because
government control over donations puts the power to control political expression in the
hands of the government, rather than in those of the people. This goes against all
principles of republican government, defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as, "a

government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens The Founders

actively campaigned for principles of republican government to be implemented in the
forming of our country, and took many of these principles into consideration when
writing the Constitution. In fact, James Madison mentions this in Federalist #10 when he
writes, ...relief is supplied by the republican principle... (Document A). Here, he is
saying that when the idea that people are in control of how their government is run, they
are much more content, because they have the freedom to make their own choices.
Madison helped write the Constitution, so what he says about republican principles is
important to take into consideration, when determining whether or not the ruling in
Citizens United v. FEC is constitutional.

Corporations have the same rights to freedom of speech as individual Americans,

because while Corporations themselves may not be people, they are made up of many
individuals. In the Supreme Courts concurrent opinion for Citizens United, Justice Scalia
says, It is the speech of many 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 (Document K). Corporations and
political parties deserve the same rights to free speech as individual Americans, because
they are made up of individual Americans, and represent their views. Even before the
Citizens United v. FEC ruling, certain corporations had the right to free speech. Under the
McCain-Feingold Act, media corporations were exempt from many rules. A corporation
that owned a newspaper, such as the New York Times, had a right to free speech because
it could express its views through its articles. In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy
says, At the same time, some other corporation, with an identical business interest but

no media outlet in its ownership structure, would be forbidden to speak or inform the
public about the same issue This differential treatment cannot be squared with the First
Amendment (Document M). He explains the injustice of only giving media
corporations the right to free speech, while not including other corporations. However,
not everyone agrees that the ruling was fair. A New York Times editorial about the
Supreme Court decision describes it as a blow to democracy, and goes on to describe
the corruption of large corporations (Document N). The ruling can not be a blow to
democracy because it gives people the right to control where their money goes, and
power of the people is what democracy is centered around. An additional document about
how the Citizens United ruling has impacted politics in the six years since its passing
would be beneficial to strengthen the argument against the New York Times editorial.
In sum, the Citizens United v. FEC ruling was constitutional. Freedom of speech is a
personal liberty given by our Constitution under the First Amendment. Restrictions on
how much individuals and corporations can donate to a campaign violate their right to
free speech. While not everyone agrees with this decision, it was made by the highest
court in the country, and like it or not, everyone has to comply by its ruling. Citizens
United v. FEC gives every single United States citizen freedom from the chains of the
FEC, so that he or she can donate his or her lottery winnings to get his or her favorite
candidate elected.