In Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not keep corporations from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.

In Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not keep corporations from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While business entities may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where the ads were not broadcast. The Court’s rationale was application of First Amendment protections and that, according to the Court, political spending is protected speech. Justice Stevens argued in his dissent that the Court’s ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” He wrote, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold” (Stevens, 2010). Do you agree with his conclusion? Does Citizens United allow wealthy corporate interests to buy political power or does it simply protect the right of citizens to associate together so that they may speak with one voice?

Be sure to support your discussion points with examples and authoritative sources.

Click out the links below for more information.

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/illuminating-citizens-united-what-the-decision-really-did

Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)