Michelle Armstrong-Spielberg

12/19/14
Pd. 1
Citizens United DBQ
In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court struck
down laws and overruled cases that regulated corporate spending in political campaigns. Based
on the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech, the justices ruled that corporations
can spend unlimited amounts of money on a political campaign, as long as the contributions are
not given directly to the candidate. In making their decision, the justices wrongly interpreted the
First Amendment and the republican principle of representation, in which the government is run
by the people, like a democracy, but also represents minorities, so that every citizen has an equal
voice. The Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United v. FEC is unconstitutional because it
improperly extends the First Amendment right of free speech to corporations as well as
individuals, and violates the representative principle of republican government by allowing quid
pro quo corruption.
Both the text and the underlying principles of the First Amendment are directed towards
protecting the rights of individuals, rather than corporations, as the Supreme Court incorrectly
ruled in Citizens United. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speechthe press
[and] the right of the people peaceably to assemble (Document C). In its very language, the
First Amendment, thus, only gives the right of free speech, press, and assembly to the people. In
addition, the purpose behind the First Amendment is protection of the people who are the
defenders of the nations freedom. As one of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, maintained,
the basis of our governments [is] the opinion of the people (Document B). Corporations cannot
be protected under the First Amendment because, while they are composed of people, they are
creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including
different tax rates, to do just that (Document N). The government treats corporations as

Michelle Armstrong-Spielberg
12/19/14
Pd. 1
businesses. Corporations, unlike people, have only business interests in mind when influencing
the political process, always trying to make more money. In the Constitution, the rights of the
people, militias, the press, religions are protected, but there is no mention of corporations rights
(Document N). Corporations cannot be protected under the First Amendment because they are
not cited as a protected group in the Constitution, and they are not people whom the First
Amendment is meant to protect.
The Citizens United decision undermines the underlying constitutional principle of a
representative government by promoting quid pro quo corruption, which allows corporations to
control the policy agenda and dissuades voters from participating in the political process.
Throughout the countrys history, the government and public have been concerned about the
corrupting influence of corporations. Joseph Kepplers 1889 cartoon depicts the undue influence
of monopolies in American politics, as Keppler and other Americans were seeing with the
growth of large industries. The cartoon shows an open door for monopolists to the Senate and a
closed door for the people, with large corporations already imposing their power over the small
Senators (Document D). Keppler demonstrates that as corporations contribute significantly to
candidates campaigns, their influence over candidates policy decisions overwhelms the publics
voice. The cartoon illustrates quid pro quo corruption because by allowing corporations this
power, they will come to completely control the Senate. Similarly, in 1910, President Teddy
Roosevelt expressed concerns that special interests too often control and corrupt the men and
methods of government for their own profit (Document E). As cartoonist Matt Wuerker
predicts, the effect of Citizens United will be to promote the same quid pro quo corruption.
Wuerkers cartoon shows corporations as large pipes, breaking through the dam that had
previously been set by campaign finance laws and flooding the political process (Document L).

Michelle Armstrong-Spielberg
12/19/14
Pd. 1
The money from the corporations will drown out voters voices and dissuade them from voting
because it will affect every aspect of American politics and voters will feel that they do not have
a significant voice compared to that of corporations. A result of corporations spending unlimited
amounts of money on campaigns is that they are essentially buying their way into the
American political system. This quid pro quo corruption is significant because, as Justice
Stevens, the longest serving justice at that time says, A democracy cannot function effectively
when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold (Document J). Citizens
United therefore violates the principle of representative government by discouraging
participation by the public in the government.
The Constitution nowhere gives any protection to corporations, yet in their Citizens
United decision, the justices give corporations even more influence than they already have.
While the justices claim that their decision is required by the First Amendment, their
interpretation improperly extends its protection beyond individuals to corporations. The decision
also allows quid pro quo corruption as it allows corporations to take over American politics.
However, to fully analyze the effect of the judges decision, documents providing statistics on
voter turnout compared to the contributions of corporations would help show the impact of their
decision on representative government. Polls of how voters are influenced by corporate
contributions would also address the justices claim that the people have the ultimate influence
over elected officials (Document I). Regardless, treating corporations as if they are people
changes the fundamental principles of the Constitution and the American democracy.

Michelle Armstrong-Spielberg
12/19/14
Pd. 1
Not getting rid of corporations free speech just regulating
free speech can be interpreted in many different ways, from
, hence the representative democracy, or democratic republic, of the United States. With
this system,
James Madison and the other founders knew that giving corporations this right to free
speech would undermine the publics voice.
The majority opinion asserted that through campaign finance laws, the government is
suppressing the speech of manifold corporations and is therefore prevent[ing] their voices and
viewpoints from reaching the public (Document I). The majority opinion is misleading because
while those judges claim that campaign finance laws prevent corporations expression, they only
regulate corporations influence, not completely ban their speech from the public. While
campaign finance laws do regulate corporate speech, it does not prevent anyone from speaking
in his or her own voice (Document J). Additionally, corporations can still fund electioneering
communications with PAC money (Document H).