Pros And Cons Of Citizens United

The supreme court is asked to judge the present by the past. Therefore directing the future through its precedent. The ramifications of such are some of the most debated points of history. The case we’re discussing is Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission (FEC) of 2010. Citizens united is a conservative political action committee (PAC) that advertised a movie called Hillary: The Movie however they advertised this political media 30 days before the democratic primary therefore beaching the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. With the plethora of legal documentation in place they were prohibited from marketing the film by a lower court and the FEC. They appealed to the supreme court and they in turn found them allowed

Kennedy meticulously develops his argument weaving in the application of the Austin holding and how McConnell was directly dependent on it. Kennedy states from the beginning that “...stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin . The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.” (Kennedy, p.1). This is in respect to the argument that the Austin holding is an explicit suppression and ban of freedom of speech. This is the cornerstone to the case because it begins to unravel the rest of the following decisions and the new argument makes them reassess the McConnell holding which was restricted after this case. The FEC denied Citizens United based on McConnell and, as recited by Kennedy “The court also rejected Citizens United’s challenge to BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements. It noted that “the Supreme Court has written approvingly of disclosure provisions triggered by political speech even though the speech itself was constitutionally protected under the First Amendment .” Id. , at 281” (Kennedy, p.2). However after the overthrowal of Austin, stymieing of McConnell and this new supreme court decision this argument becomes laughably

“When the Government holds out the possibility of ruling for Citizens United on a narrow ground yet refrains from adopting that position, the added uncertainty demonstrates the necessity to address the question of statutory validity.” (Kennedy, p.4). This further supports the move for facial address. Next he states a specific problem which is that the most important dialogue is what is said immediately preceding the elections which is exactly what BCRA states. Additionally he speaks in direct relation to the case that even though they were eventually told Kennedy reminds us that “Citizens United finally learns, two years after the fact, whether it could have spoken during the 2008 Presidential primary—long after the opportunity to persuade primary voters has passed” (Kennedy, p.4). Lastly by putting so many restrictions on corporations it cripples them so Kennedy concludes that this impedes “...the integrity of the election process.” (Kennedy, p.4). This reasonably concludes his views on the expansion of the case because these reasons obligated them to