Lily Haeberle

12-9-14
Period 4
DBQ
Asses whether the Supreme Court ruled correctly in the Citizens United v. F.E.C., 2010, in light
of constitutional principles including republican government and freedom of speech.
America has been built on the notion that people have the right to free speech and a
chance to have a say in their government. An organization known as Citizens United wanted to
protect the peoples First Amendment rights in their Supreme Court case against the Federal
Election Commission. This case sought to overturn the McCain-Feingold Act, otherwise known
as the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA). This act banned any corporation or
union speech that is considered to be electioneering communications within 30 to 60 days of a
general election. Citizens United succeeded in overturning the BCRA. The Supreme Court ruling
in the case of Citizens United vs. F.E.C. was constitutional as they exercised the First
Amendment rights and applied the principles of republican government.
In the Constitution, the First Amendment states that, Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Doc C). This clearly states that Congress is not
allowed to deprive people of their freedom of speech. BCRA would have violated the First
Amendment by banning speech if the act had not been overturned. The courts ruling of this case
shows that they consider money expenditures to be a form of free speech so the BCRA would
have deprived corporations from their natural right of speech. According to Justice Anthony
Kennedy, All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the
economic marketplace to fund their speech (Doc I). Therefore, banning the use of money would
be considered as banning speech from individuals and the media, or otherwise known as the
corporations that fund campaigns. This is important because groups such as Political Action

Committees (PACs) are based on raising money for campaigns and candidates so banning the use
of money would be banning their form of speech. Their speech is expressed by giving money to
candidates they support but without money, they have no voice. Justice Anthony Kennedy is a
respected Supreme Court Justice who was on the case. He originally wrote the concurrent
opinion for the ruling but as more and more Justices began to agree on his stance, it became the
majority opinion. This shows that he is a credible and distinguished person on the matter. On the
topic of a different type of speech, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Edward Carrington in 1787 saying
that, the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should
be to keep that right (Doc B). This statement provides us with the belief that we need the
peoples views on matters so that our government can function properly. Also, being able to
express our opinion is a basic right that must be protected.
Conversely, the dissent opinion disagrees with these claims. The dissent believes that
when the First Amendment was written, it was free speech of individual Americans that they
had in mind, not corporations (Doc J). They do not believe that when a corporation speaks, they
are representing every single person in that organization. Therefore they will not count it as
speech of an individual and will not protect that right. But in Document K, the concurrent
opinion points out that the individual persons right to speak includes the right to speak in
association with other individual persons (Doc K). This statement proves that the dissents point
is invalid. The concurrent further justifies its claim by comparing the Democratic and Republican
Partys speech to corporate speech by saying that major Party speech would never be banned
the association of individuals in a business corporation is no differentor at least it cannot be
denied the right to speak on the simplest ground that it is not an individual American (Doc K).

The constitutionality of the ruling of this case is also based upon republican government.
Republican government is a government where the people get to choose who represents them in
office. This connects to freedom of speech because people have a voice and they are allowed to
freely support whom they want to win office. In 2008, a PAC created a documentary titled
Hillary: the Movie but it was banned by the BCRA because it was funded by an incorporated
group and was less than complimentary of then-Senator Hillary Clinton (Doc M). The courts
ruling of this case is constitutional in this category because people have the right to vote and
support someone they want representing them. The group who created the film supported the
opposing candidate and they should be allowed to release something of that nature because that
is their view. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison speaks of factions as a means of republican
government. He wants to control the factions in a way so that they do not become too powerful
and take over. By controlling a factions effects relief is supplied by the republican principle,
which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote (Doc A). This supports
republican government because different factions stand for different interests and views that
represent the people of that community. People choose what faction best represents their interests
and they join it. James Madison has solid credibility on this matter as he was President of the
Unites States and wrote this lengthy paper on the ways to control a faction because they scared
him. His fear lead to him gaining knowledge on the topic and being a reliable source.
The Supreme Courts ruling in the case of Citizens United vs. F.E.C. was constitutional
because the First Amendment rights were applied and the principles of republican government
were taken into consideration. This case ruling resulted in SuperPACs. A SuperPAC is a group
that can raise an unlimited amount of money but cannot contribute directly to a candidate.
Hence, Hillary: the Movie would now be allowed under the new ruling of the case because it

was created by a SuperPAC and not directly aimed at the candidate they were in support of. An
additional document that would further my understanding and be helpful to my analysis of this
topic could be a potential amendment being put in place to try to change the ruling of this case.
This document would help me because I could refer to recent arguments for and against, which
couldve helped guide my opinion in another way or even further in the same direction.