Omar Bennett
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that sparked widespread controversy. The Court's 5–4 ruling in favour of Citizens United found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This decision has been criticised for granting disproportionate political power to large corporations and enabling corporate personhood. To address these concerns, there have been growing calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, with numerous states, cities, and members of Congress expressing support. The proposed amendments aim to confirm that constitutional rights are exclusively for human beings, regulate political contributions, and eliminate unlimited campaign spending. The debate surrounding Citizens United highlights the ongoing struggle between free speech principles and the need to curb the influence of corporate money in politics.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Decision | The Supreme Court decided in favor of Citizens United, stating that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. |
| Criticism | The decision was criticized for promoting corporate personhood and granting disproportionate political power to large corporations. |
| Support for Amendment | Over 22 states and hundreds of cities have voted to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. |
| Aim of Amendment | To end corporate personhood, reverse Citizens United, reduce the influence of money in politics, and ensure that constitutional rights are for people, not corporations. |
| Challenges | The Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United, but it is unlikely to happen without significant changes in the Court's composition. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court's controversial ruling
The controversial ruling by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) has sparked widespread debate and efforts to overturn the decision through a constitutional amendment. The 5-4 ruling concluded that laws restricting the political spending of corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. This decision has been criticized for promoting corporate personhood and granting disproportionate political power to large corporations, leading to a wave of support for an amendment to overturn it.
The Citizens United ruling struck down long-standing prohibitions on corporate "independent" spending, allowing these entities to independently expend significant sums on election activity. This includes money that does not directly benefit a specific candidate or political party. The court's decision was based on the argument that limiting independent expenditures by these groups equates to limiting their freedom of speech, as protected by the First Amendment.
However, the ruling has been met with strong opposition, with many arguing that it grants excessive influence to corporations and special interests in the political process. The decision has resulted in a significant increase in independent spending, creating an imbalance of power and limiting the average American's ability to influence elected officials. In response, cities, towns, and states across the country have passed resolutions expressing support for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and challenge corporate power.
The proposed amendments, such as the "We the People Amendment," aim to end corporate personhood, clarify that constitutional rights are exclusively for human beings, and emphasize that money is not equivalent to free speech. These amendments also seek to ensure the public disclosure of political contributions and expenditures to increase transparency and reduce the influence of big money in politics.
Despite the growing momentum to overturn Citizens United, it will likely require a significant shift in the composition of the Supreme Court for this to occur. The court has the authority to overturn its previous decision, but it is more practical to aim for a constitutional amendment to address the concerns raised by the controversial ruling.
The Men Behind Amendments 18 and 21
You may want to see also
The First Amendment and free speech
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. This right has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to spend money to disseminate information and ideas, including for political campaigns. In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled that laws restricting the political spending of corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The Court held that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions and that any government control on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction.
The Citizens United decision has been highly controversial. Supporters argue that it defends American principles of free speech and safeguards against government overreach. Senator Mitch McConnell, for example, commended the decision as "an important step in restoring First Amendment rights." On the other hand, critics argue that it promotes corporate personhood and grants disproportionate political power to large corporations. Then-President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington."
In the wake of Citizens United, there have been growing calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision and curb the influence of money in politics. At least 22 states and hundreds of cities have voted to support such an amendment, and national polls show that reducing the influence of money in politics is a top policy priority for Americans across party lines. The proposed amendments aim to confirm that constitutional rights are for human beings, not corporations, and to allow for the regulation, limitation, or prohibition of political contributions and expenditures to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the political process.
While some argue that the Supreme Court could overturn Citizens United with a majority vote, as it did with Roe v. Wade, others point out that this is unlikely to happen without significant changes in the Court's composition. As a result, efforts have focused on pursuing a constitutional amendment to address the issue.
Amendments Removed: The Evolution of Our Constitution
You may want to see also
Corporate personhood
The concept of corporate personhood is a highly contested issue that has been brought to the fore by the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case. In this landmark ruling, the United States Supreme Court held that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This decision sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that it promoted corporate personhood and granted corporations disproportionate political power.
The Citizens United decision has had far-reaching implications for campaign finance laws and the role of money in politics. It led to a significant increase in independent spending by corporations and outside groups, often referred to as "dark money," due to the lack of transparency regarding the sources of these funds. This influx of corporate money into politics has been viewed as a threat to democratic ideals and the principle of government by and for the people.
In response to the Citizens United ruling, there have been widespread calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision and curb the influence of corporate personhood. At least 22 states and hundreds of cities have passed resolutions supporting such an amendment, and national polls indicate strong public support for reducing the influence of money in politics. Proponents of the amendment argue that it is necessary to end corporate dominance in elections and restore power to the people.
The proposed amendments, such as the We the People Amendment introduced by Representative Pramila Jayapal, aim to specify that constitutional rights are inherent to people, not corporations. These amendments seek to end corporate constitutional rights, ensure transparency in political contributions, and assert that money is not equivalent to speech. While there are differing views on the exact approach, there is a growing consensus that addressing corporate personhood and the influence of money in politics is essential for safeguarding democratic principles.
Amending the Oklahoma Constitution: A Dynamic Document
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Influence of big money in politics
The influence of big money in politics has been a concern for Americans across party lines, with many calling for a reduction in its role. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) decision by the Supreme Court in 2010 is seen as a major factor in the increasing influence of corporate wealth in politics. The ruling struck down century-old prohibitions on corporate "independent" spending, allowing corporations, unions, and certain non-profits to spend unlimited funds on election campaigns. This has resulted in a significant increase in spending by outside groups, with some of the biggest contributors being Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, and the NRA.
The Citizens United decision has been criticised for promoting corporate personhood and granting disproportionate political power to large corporations and wealthy donors. It has also led to the rise of super PACs, which are political committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money with minimal regulation. These super PACs have become powerful tools in state and federal politics, often used to promote specific ideologies or financial interests.
The influence of big money in politics has had several negative consequences. Firstly, it has contributed to the erosion of faith in the government, as many citizens feel that their voices are being drowned out by wealthy special interests. Secondly, it has increased the potential for political corruption, as politicians may become indebted to their large donors. Additionally, the influx of dark money, or untraceable funds, has made it difficult to ensure transparency and accountability in campaign financing.
To address these concerns, many Americans have called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. This amendment would aim to reduce the influence of corporate wealth in politics and restore power to the people. Some have suggested that the amendment should specify that constitutional rights are for people, not corporations, and that artificial entities have no constitutional rights. Additionally, there have been proposals for alternative means of campaign financing, such as public financing systems, to reduce the reliance on big donors and super PACs.
While there is strong support for a constitutional amendment, some have expressed concerns about its potential impact on free speech. However, most Americans across party lines still prioritise reducing the influence of big money in politics. State and local governments also have a role to play in making election financing fairer and more transparent, even without a constitutional amendment.
Executive and Legislative Powers: War and Amendments
You may want to see also
Public support for an amendment
In the years following the ruling, there has been a growing movement advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. By 2012, nearly 300 local cities, towns, and counties, along with seven state legislatures, had called for an amendment. This number continued to grow, and as of 2022, at least 22 states and hundreds of cities have voted to support an amendment.
Public Citizen, a non-profit organisation, has been at the forefront of this movement, working to build grassroots support for an amendment. They have organised rallies, protests, and speaking tours to raise awareness and galvanise support. Their efforts have resulted in numerous local resolutions being passed across the country. Additionally, Public Citizen's reports have highlighted the increasing influence of outside groups' spending in elections, further fuelling the call for an amendment.
National polls consistently show that reducing the influence of money in politics is a top priority for Americans across all demographics. The "We the People Amendment," introduced by U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal, aims to end corporate constitutional rights and restore power to the people. The amendment has gained support from politicians such as President Barack Obama and members of Congress, who recognise the need to curb the influence of corporate money in elections.
While there is significant public support for an amendment, the process to amend the Constitution is complex. It requires a two-thirds majority in Congress or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states. Despite the challenges, the momentum for an amendment to overturn Citizens United continues to build, reflecting the public's desire to address the issue of corporate influence in politics.
Presidents and Amendments: A Rare Call for Change
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court's ruling sparked controversy as it was viewed by some as promoting corporate personhood and granting disproportionate political power to large corporations. It also resulted in an increase in independent spending by corporations and other outside groups in election campaigns, creating an imbalance in power and limiting the average American's ability to influence elected officials.
A constitutional amendment is required to explicitly state that constitutional rights are intended for human beings and not corporations, thereby ending corporate personhood and the influence of corporate money in politics.
The primary argument in favour of overturning Citizens United is to reduce the influence of corporate money in politics and restore power to the citizens. It is also argued that the ruling grants disproportionate political power to large corporations and promotes corporate personhood, contradicting the principles of democracy.
There has been a growing movement to overturn Citizens United, with at least 22 states and hundreds of cities passing resolutions in support of a constitutional amendment. Members of Congress have also joined the cause. Additionally, U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal introduced the "We the People Amendment," aiming to end corporate constitutional rights and ensure that rights provided by the Constitution are for people, not corporations.
