Week 4 DB

Week 4 DB

Nadeje Brit

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Author Note

Week 4 DB

During the presidential elections of 2008, a group called ‘Citizens United’ desired to publicize a critical film on Hillary Clinton during television broadcasts ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"m286UxoS","properties":{"formattedCitation":"({\\i{}Citizens United v. Federal Election Com\\uc0\\u8217{}n}, 2009)","plainCitation":"(Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 2009)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":890,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/LTAI97RG"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/LTAI97RG"],"itemData":{"id":890,"type":"legal_case","authority":"Supreme Court","container-title":"US","page":"310","title":"Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n","volume":"558","issued":{"date-parts":[["2009",3,24]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 2009). As a result, a case was filed against it, but the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment of the Constitution reserves the group’s right to freedom of speech. Thus, they are allowed to broadcast the film. I agree with the decision of the Court. In a political campaign, a party must be able to exercise its freedom of speech completely given that it does not violate the rights of others. The public has the right to be aware of the actions of politicians, however, they must also respect their privacy. The state cannot nullify a ruling which is based on the constitution of the U.S. As this court decision is made by Supreme Court based on the First Amendment, the State of New York cannot nullify it and impose its laws for limiting the corporation’s spending for promoting a political candidate. The U.S Constitution recognizes the freedom of speech of a corporation under the Bill of Rights. The amendments in the constitution do not use the word ‘corporation’ ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"9fv5pQ4C","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Ratner, 1980)","plainCitation":"(Ratner, 1980)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":892,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/QX3ZKE58"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/QX3ZKE58"],"itemData":{"id":892,"type":"article-journal","container-title":"University of San Francisco Law Review","journalAbbreviation":"U.S.F. L. Rev.","page":"11","title":"Corporations and the Constitution","volume":"15","author":[{"family":"Ratner","given":"David L."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1980"]],"season":"1981"}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Ratner, 1980). However, businesses are treated similarly as the people or groups of people in court cases generally. Thus, the right to freedom of speech of a corporation is protected under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

Corporations should not be allowed to spend millions of dollars on supporting a political candidate. The political campaigns that spend a fortune in promoting a political party hinder the fair political system as well as the economy of the middle class. Those who spend a lot of money in promoting a candidate, are investing in policies and programs that will benefit them in the long run. Not only do they influence the views of Americans through the expenditure, but they can potentially reshape the economy too. Corporations invest in political campaigns, with the intention that after the candidate is selected, they will receive the benefits of lower taxes, construction approvals, and other types of special treatment.

References

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 558 US 310 (Supreme Court 2009).

Ratner, D. L. (1980). Corporations and the Constitution. University of San Francisco Law Review, 15, 11.