'Citizens United V. FEC' By Richard Epstein: Article Analysis

Since the 1800s, money’s involvement in politics has been an issue. In 1867, a scholar from New York University (NYU), Elihu Root, stated that corporate money and politics do not mix; to this day, money’s impact in politics is an issue. In January of 2010, the Supreme Court decided that political spending is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. This means that the government cannot keep corporations or unions from spending money to endorse or denounce any candidate. But the question still remains: what are the dangers of the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. FEC concerning campaign finance? In “Citizens United v. FEC: The Constitutional Right that Big Corporations Should Have but Don’t” by Richard Epstein, he

FEC,” he addresses the idea that Citizens United has many developed aspects to it; the case is arguing that Citizens United “does not involve cartel or monopoly practices, or abuse of children, or any of the other traditional exceptions to First Amendment protection.” However, Epstein also addresses that corporations are not citizens and cannot vote. But many people still ask: if corporations are not citizens and cannot vote, why are they protected under the First Amendment? This protection under the First Amendment gives corporations and unions rights that states do not have the power to overrule; businesses, essentially, have more power and more sway in their opinions. Epstein is very objective when presenting the issues of this case; however, he considers this power political corruption because the First Amendment does not protect the use of money, which means that “anyone who uses money to obtain assistance in preparing for political speech has crossed over the line into potentially criminal conduct.” With this Supreme Court decision, our elections are heavily influenced by the amount of money put into candidates. As President Obama said in a State of the Union Address, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, foreign entities.” In “Full Disclosure” by Levinson, corruption and disclosure laws are the front-running issues. Disclosure laws would cause corporations and

Before, I was unaware of Citizens United, and I did not know that campaign financing was such a debated issue. Epstein’s article, “Citizens United v. FEC,” taught me about the BCRA, which, from what I have read, sounds like a much better decision than Citizens United. I liked how impartial Epstein was when presenting his information, and I agree with what he had to say. I do think that big companies and corporations now have the ability to sway voters by expressing their political opinions and funding or denouncing candidates. The last thing we need is a company swaying the votes of consumers months or weeks before an election. After reading Levinson’s article, “Full Disclosure,” I became aware of how important disclosure laws actually are. Disclosure laws could provide voters with valuable information about who stands behind political candidates. Without them, many companies do not disclose their spendings to the public for the sake of their reputation. Both articles made me realize that the Citizens United decision allows our elections to be heavily influenced by the amount of money put into candidates, and I realize that campaign financing has the ability to be selfish and secretive without the right provisions of