Coronel 1

Marcos Coronel
Professor Rodriguez
Political Science 102
10 July 2017
Paper #1
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark case for campaign finance
regulation due to the 5-4 decision that validated the rights of corporations. The Supreme Court
case produced a new type of political action committees that are less regulated and have far
fewer monetary restrictions on corporations called super PACs. Super PACs do not have
limitations on the amount of donations received like that of a regular PAC, but follow most
restrictions on the mode of support on elections. Justice Kennedy delivered the decision of the
court and Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. Both documents addressed the core issues
of the case: ban on speech, identity-based distinctions, First Amendment tradition, and
corruption.
Justice Kennedy took a very adamant stance on the ban on speech that occurred prior the
decision. Kennedy addressed the issue by saying that PAC regulations hinder corporations from
making their voice heard. He provides, Given the onerous restrictions, a corporation may not be
able to establish a PAC in time to make its views known regarding candidates and issues in a
current campaign (Kennedy, pg. 3). The decision also discussed the various expenditures that
are needed to administer the PACs are expensive and that those expenses get in the way of the
corporation expressing its views. Kennedy also wrote that limiting a corporation's independent
expenditures on political communications i.e. size of donation, is a ban of speech. He reached
this conclusion by saying that the restriction of donations also restricts the depth of the issues
discussed.
In the dissent opinion, Justice Stevens addressed the ban on speech by disagreeing with the
existence of any ban on speech. Stevens and the other dissenting justices believe that the cases
cited by the majority are not restricting because there are other modes of expression that the FEC
does not regulate. Another important note by Stevens is that the restrictions of section 203 of the
penal code are restrictions of speech that are justified under time, place, and matter. He also
believes that corporations have been using those loopholes and that they still have a substantial
presence when it comes to elections. It is also stated that the burden of the administration costs
are unsubstantiated due to the fact that the regulations kept by the Court are also costly.
On the topic of identity-based distinctions, Justice Kennedy supports the notion that the
wealth of the speaker should not interfere with the expression of the said speaker. Meaning that
just because corporations are, for the most part, wealthy does not translate to less First
Amendment freedoms. Kennedy cited the overturning of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Commerce for permitting the prior identity of corporations. By saying that the aforementioned
case banned all corporate expenditures for communications by a corporation, it should have
extended to printed books, which was never enforced. Kennedy also said that by expanding the
powers of the government, it would weaken the protections of the First Amendment. Thus, by
not recognizing the First Amendment protection of corporations was unconstitutional.
Justice Stevens believes that the denunciation of identity-based distinctions are hypocritical.
He cites the restrictions based on different classes or groups of societies are supported by the
government. Stevens used the examples of students, prison inmates, and employees as groups
 Coronel 2
that have limitations of speech. Stevens also raises his concern by saying that legislators have the
right to enact viewpoint-neutral laws based on content and identity. Justice Stevens cited other
cases that have permitted laws that limit expression on the basis of political interference. He
noted a discrepancy by noting that voting is a mode of political expression and suggesting that
corporations would seek all methods of political expression.
Justice Kennedy discussed that notion that cases like Austin v. MCC and McConnell v. FEC
interfered with our First Amendment tradition. He expressed that those cases hindered the open
marketplace we have grown accustomed to regarding the exchange of ideas. That by not
allowing corporations to express what they stand for, there would be less ideas circulating, thus
less discussion regarding elections. The provisions preventing the expression of ideas and beliefs
of corporations are not constitutional under the premise that they do not permit corporations to
defend themselves against entities and peoples that they may consider a threat.
Justice Stevens discredited the argument of the interference of the the First Amendment
tradition by explaining that the idea of todays corporations is relatively new. Stevens cited the
Framers beliefs of corporations and showed that todays interpretation of corporations is not
what the Framers believed in. He also gave the definition of a corporation and the process of a
business becoming a corporation in the past. He argues that the First Amendment was meant for
individual Americans, not corporations. Stevens claims it is irresponsible to give complete First
Amendment freedoms to corporations as it would lead to corporation control of elections.
Regarding corruption, Justice Kennedy argues for the Court that corruption would not
increase due to the lifting of limits on corporate expenditures. Kennedy said that the limits on
direct contributions is sufficient in reducing corruption and the appearance of corruption. He
agreed with the previous ruling in the Buckley case that could not justify restrictions of
independent expenditures for the purpose preventing of corruption.
Justice Stevens completely disagrees with the majority by saying that the Court simply
recognized certain forms of corruptions as legitimate threats to democracy. Stevens argues that
corruption is on a spectrum, rather than black and white. He said that by classifying certain
practices as corruption is not adequate in politics as many other forms of corruption exist.
Justice Kennedy believes that the First Amendment should include corporations and all
restrictions on how they employ the amendment should be lifted because he, and the other four
justices, believe in the importance of civil liberties to defend the beliefs of everyone,
corporations included. The majority views corporations as entities that also have rights and
freedoms at stake come election time, what they believe is that corporations should be able to use
their means to express their opinions on how they may be effected. Kennedy wrote, If 441b
applied to individuals, no one would believe that it is merely a time, place, or manner restriction
on speech. Its purpose and effect are to silence entities whose voices the Government deems to
be suspect (Kennedy, 3). Kennedy wants to ensure that corporations are able to express their
opinions at any time during election season because they, along with individuals, are affected
when there is an election of any kind. Along with having the ability to express beliefs, Kennedy
also sought to defend the content on the grounds that it will provoke new thoughts and
discussion. Kennedy provides, The Government may not by these means deprive the public of
the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of
consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from
each (Kennedy, pg. 4). Kennedy believes that preventing censorship, ideas would flow into
 Coronel 3
society and provoke discussion of the matter at hand. He exclaims that the government has no
right to determine what speech and speakers are worth listening to. By allowing corporations to
have free reign over use of media, it would benefit most.
Justice Stevens believes that the First Amendment is exclusive to individual Americans. He
believes that on the basis to preserve the existing beliefs of Americans, corporations should have
no interference. Stevens argues, Unlike our colleagues, they 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, pg. 5). He strongly believes that the floodgates of interference into the elections were
opened with the ruling given. Stevens is firm in his stance that while corporations had limited,
existing modes of expression, giving the corporations complete First Amendment protections is
not the answer. The dissenting justices expressed fear with the protections given to corporations
and how they would change the political landscape of future elections. Stevens wrote, If taken
seriously, our colleagues assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the
Governments ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions
(Stevens, pg. 4). Stevens is very adamant that the previous restrictions were just because
corporations still had modes of expression that allowed them to sustain a large presence in
elections, but by the opinion of the majority the future validity of elections is in the air.
Kennedys approach to the First Amendment is most persuasive because it is less restrictive. I
am a firm believer that the public is capable of recognizing what is factual and what is not. If
those that fail to recognize what is clear propaganda, it is on them. It interferes with democracy
to place limitations on who or how can deliver their message. It is extremely important to protect
free speech and to prevent the speech or the speakers from giving their two cents. Considering
that corporations are not tangible, it is important to look beyond the mere corporation. There is
someone leading that corporation and it is that person or group that is having their freedoms
suppressed. For example, the super PAC, Priorities USA, ran ads in opposition of the republican
party at a cost of $126,952,679 up to election-eve. They reserve that right to fight for what they
believe is just.