The Pros And Cons Of Justice Stevens

Justice Stevens wrote an impassioned dissent that claimed the ruling decided by the majority would threaten the democratic process. The justice initiates his dissent by refuting the claim that Citizen’s United or any other corporation’s speech has been barred. Through political action committees these organization have the ability to spend unlimited funds to endorse their favored candidates at any location or at any time apart from the restricted dates. Stevens goes on to disprove of the courts basic foundation that regulation of the corporation is based on speaker’s identity which is unconstitutional. This is an incorrect view of the law that is not held in the constitution. Stevens states “In the contest of election to public office, the

He then reasons if the government is allowed and correct in restricting the speech of some (e.g., Navy Seal) without it being constitutional infringement the majority’s declaration that we cannot regulate based on speaker is not unsupported. Stevens goes on cite precedents that are at odds with the majority’s opinion like the Framers model. He states the framers “had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind” (Stevens, p.5). Corporation at the time had to be accepted by the legislature and once given approval their powers were clearly outlined and defined while being regulated. He then criticizes of the majority’s stance that corruption is simply quid pro quo is unrealistic. Steven insists that “Corruption can take many forms” (Stevens, p.6). Corruption can be bought access and not necessarily a this for that arrangement. When a corporation invests an abundant amount of capital on a candidate it would be expected that officeholder would remember his benefactor when issues revolving them come