Leah Savage

Period 1
Citizens United vs. F.E.C. DBQ
In Citizens United v. F.E.C., the government ruled that the ban on corporate and
union independent expenditures was unconstitutional under the First Amendments
speech clause. In essence, it gave corporations the right to act as people in their political
speech. It also allowed corporations to funnel unlimited money to candidates and
policymakers, through Political Action Committees, which are organizations that pool
money and contribute it to the campaign of a candidate. This ruling opened up the
question of the extent to which all people and groups have the right to speak, and in
which ways they can express themselves. This ruling, however, doesn't adhere to the first
amendment, but helps to counter democracy by allowing corporations to
disproportionately influence the political system with money. The decision in Citizens
United v. F.E.C. was unconstitutional, as it goes against the beliefs of the Founding
fathers and republican government by defining corporations as individuals, encouraging
factions and special interests to be forced onto the government and policy makers, and
discouraging the voting process.
The Constitution was created on the basis of republican government, and the
description of corporations as people counters this precedent of power in the hands of the
citizens. The "Dissenting Opinion on Citizens United v. F.E.C." describes that "members
of the founding generation held a cautious view of corporate power and a narrow view of
corporate rights...and...they conceptualized speech in individualistic terms" (Document
J). The First Amendment explains that, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (Document C). Allowing
corporations to be thought of as people undermines these two documents, which each

convey that the Founding Fathers established the right to assembly and free speech as
privileges only to be held by individuals, not abused by corporations. Teddy Roosevelt's
"New Nationalism Speech" also supports the rights of individuals, portraying 'special
interests' as corporations. Roosevelt writes, "Every special interest is entitled to justice,
but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation
in any public office" (Document E). Corporations may be run by individuals, but are
often so broad and complex that they don't represent the opinions of all employees.
Roosevelt supports the rights of corporations to be able to work for their interests, but not
so that they achieve a legitimate vote in legislation passed through. In "Federalist #10",
James Madison also writes of large groups of people working for their own interests. He
was a President of the United States and an instrumental member of the founding
generation, writing to the people of America with a serious tone and trying to establish a
federalist government after seeing the effects of factions on the government. He says they
must be removed by controlling their effects, writing, "Because the causes of faction
cannot be removed...relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects"
(Document A). The effects of the spending of corporations, or in Madison's case, factions,
should be controlled so that corporations are not regarded as individuals in their rights to
speak or vote and unfairly impact the government.
The Supreme Court's allowance of unlimited corporate and union independent
expenditures opposes the idea of limitations of factions and a government freed of the
pressure of special interests. These corporations and union independent expenditures hurt
the workings of the government by pushing lawmakers to accommodate special interests
using money. The Dissenting Opinion on Citizens United v. F.E.C. says, "On numerous

occasions we have recognized Congress's legitimate interest in preventing the money that
is spent on elections from exerting an 'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment' and
from creating 'the appearance of such influence'" (Document J). Congress has worked to
keep the interests of a few from overtaking the opinions of many, and this ruling has
taken a step backwards in this effort. One dangerous effect of these special interests is the
pressure of one ideology or party on lawmakers. The Court's Blow to Democracy, from
the New York Times in 2010, says, "Now a similar conservative majority has distorted
the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous
advantage in future elections" (Document N). One party holding major power in the
decisions lawmakers make through the donation of funds disrupts democracy, which is
supposed to put power equally into the hands of all people. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th
President of the United States, was certainly influenced by the money of corporations
when he was a Presidential candidate, and can accurately express the negative effects of
special interests on policymakers. In his "New Nationalism Speech" he was reaching out
for 'new nationalism,' mostly arguing for the protection of property rights and welfare
privileges. He says that "Our government, National and State, must be freed from the
sinister influence and control of special interests" (Document E). These sinister special
interests expressed through the funneling of money into of policymakers shouldn't be
allowed.
Lastly, the corporations pressuring policymakers hurt the legitimacy of the voting
process. The Dissenting Opinion on Citizens United v. F.E.C. explains, "A democracy
cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought
and sold" (Document J). The idea that influence could be achieved without the process of

voting democratically may give citizens the idea that their votes don't matter, or that
voting is not the best way to get to policymakers. The cartoon by Joseph Keppler,
American cartoonist and caricaturist, entitled "The Bosses of the Senate" as well as the
cartoon "Another Dam Breaks" by Matt Wuerker, who won the 2012 Editorial
Cartooning Pulitzer Prize and is co-founder and political cartoonist for Politico, show the
influence that corporations and monopolies have on citizens. "The Bosses of the Senate"
portrays the Senate, with huge, fat monopolies like the steel beam, copper, and standard
oil trusts hovering over Congressmen and completely filling the room, while the entrance
for people is closed (Document D). "Another Dam Breaks" shows a huge stream of
foreign, union, and corporate money being poured into government buildings and flowing
over citizens trying to vote below (Document L). The votes of average citizens, who were
once considered the "censors of their governors," even whose "errors will tend to keep
these to the true principles of their institution" (Document B), now seem to be drowned
out by the monopolies and corporations pouring money into policymakers. James
Madison's "Federalist #10" explains that, "If a faction consists of less than a majority,
relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its
sinister views by regular vote" (Document A). The votes of people were established to be
the deciding factor for American legislation and the controllers of factions, but are no
longer enough to overcome the stream of money flooding into Washington.
The ruling in in Citizens United v. F.E.C. was clearly unconstitutional. It goes
against the precedent of republican government, which puts money into the hands of
individuals and people rather than corporations, as well as the beliefs of the Founding
Fathers, who established free speech and voting rights for individual citizens only. By

defining corporations as people, this ruling has also condoned the placement of pressure
on policymakers to work for the special interests of these corporations funding their
campaigns and work. This ruling also damages the legitimacy of American elections by
taking away the power of voters to decide on legislation and the decisions of legislators.
Americans no longer have as much power as corporations funneling money into
legislators and candidates. One document that would be helpful in furthering my
argument is one with information on what corporations control the most Political Action
Committees and thus have the most opportunity for contributing money to policymakers,
as well as what interests these corporations support. It would have been helpful to use this
information to argue the specific biases that these corporations hold, and to know whether
one political party has more power than the other in these corporations.