Mae Gilligan

Period 4
12/31/15
Constitutional Citizens United
How Americans elect our leaders is what makes us a democracy. How information about
those leaders gets outwell, thats what makes us a capitalist democracy. In 2002, Congress
passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in an attempt to reform campaign finance and
reduce loopholes. An important provision of this act banned electioneering communications
within a certain time before an election. Electioneering communications are defined as any form
of speech that mentions a candidate and is funded by a special interest. When Citizens United,
a nonprofit, released their film Hillary: The Movie on demand within the window for the
upcoming 2008 election, they found themselves in the Supreme Court. They were stacked up
against the Federal Election Commission, a commission created by the Federal Election
Campaign Reform Acts to ensure fair behavior in elections. The Supreme Court ruled that the
BCRA provision did apply to Hillary (that the movie was electioneering speech), and that said
provision violated Americans First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled correctly
according to the Constitution in Citizens United vs. F.E.C. case because the film was an
electioneering communication, and in modern-day society, money does count as political speech,
which is protected under the First Amendment. Also, in our representative government,
communications like this are necessary to keep voters informed about their representatives.
First of all, the movie was easily qualified as electioneering speech. It was placed on
demand within the 60 day window before the election, was all about Hillary Clinton, and was
funded by Citizens United. This group is a special interest because they are a politically
minded group aimed at returning government to the people. According to its mission statement,
its goals and intents, Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to
citizens control (Document G). Thats not where the controversy comes from. The controversy

Mae Gilligan
Period 4
12/31/15
Constitutional Citizens United
comes from whether or not overturning the BCRA was constitutional, which it was. The ruling
was constitutional mainly because of the First Amendment. The courts statement from the case,
intended for the public to explain their ruling, reads If the First Amendment has any use, it
prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens, for simply engaging
in political speech (Document I). Is says any use. Literally the only use of the First
Amendment is to protect speech. The film was absolutely political speech, as it criticized
Clintons policies, and banning it violated the groups first amendment rights. Citizens United is
an association of citizens, who have the freedom of speech to express their political opinion
whenever they want. The First Amendment clearly states Congress shall make no law
abridging the freedom of speech (Document C). The BCRA abridged the freedom of political
speech that Citizens United, and all American citizens or associations, have the right to. This has
happened before with other cases, and other laws.
One such case was Buckley versus Valeo, in 1976 which set many precedents for
campaign finance, and was instrumental in the Citizens United case. It struck down several
portions of the Federal Election Campaign Acts, which restricted the amount of money interest
groups could spend on political campaigns. The FECA stated that money doesnt count as
political speech, and thus isnt protected, but the Buckley v Valeo ruling reminded us that a
restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication
during a campaign necessarily reduced the quantity of expression (Document F). In our society,
money is essential to speech. Publishing anything, in any major media, costs money, and thus
restricting money restricts speech. It costs money to buy advertisements in print such as
magazine and newspapers, as well as radio or TV spots. This is not ideal, of course. In a perfect

Mae Gilligan
Period 4
12/31/15
Constitutional Citizens United
society, people could express their opinions and be heard at a national level for free, and
everyone would have an equal voice. But that is not how our society works, and complaining
about it is irrelevant to this argument. In a Wall Street Journal Article about land mark free
speech cases, it was noted that The Courts opinion was effective in dismantling [the BCRA]s
arbitrary exemption for media corporations (Document M). Media corporations had the right to
publish whatever they wanted and endorse whomever they wanted, while other corporations
could not, which was completely unfair, until Citizens United changed that. The Citizens
United dissenting opinion argued that when the Framers constitutionalized the right of free
speech in the first amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans they had in mind
(Document J). The argument complains of the dangers of corporations, but Citizens United is not
a corporation. Corporations have financial interests in politics, but political action groups such as
Citizens United aim to free the government from such corporate control, which the framers
would have supported. As James Madison noted in Federalist 10, factions cause mischief, but
destroying the liberty that enables them would be worse than contending with them. He wrote It
could not be less folly to abolish libertythan it would be to wish the destruction of air
(Document A). While interest groups may cause similar mischief in the American political
system, restricting them destroys our liberty, which was unthinkable in 1787 and remains so
today.
The United States is an always has been a representative democracy. Citizens rely on
their representatives in the legislature to enforce their opinions so that we can have a functioning
democracy and enact legislation. In order to choose representatives who represent their views on
policies, citizens need to be informed about the candidates policies and views. Electioneering

Mae Gilligan
Period 4
12/31/15
Constitutional Citizens United
communications help citizens become more informed. Though they aim to sway viewers in one
direction through omission, citizens tend to consume media communication for both sides, and
so can make an informed decision. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Edward Carrington in 1787, a
time when the U.S. was in great turmoil as far as our government, the people are the only
censors of their governors (Document B). A Founding Father noted this. The people need to be
informed to properly censor their governors, and can do so through electioneering
communications. If these are limited within the days closest to the election, the ignorant voting
through which our democracy has struggled will continue. A concurrent opinion for the case in
2010 reminded the opposition that An antislavery Quaker corporation petitioned the First
Congress, distributed pamphlets, and communicated through the press in 1790 (Document K).
These communications have been going on since the literal beginning of America. Theyre
essential to our democracy.
The constitutionality of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United V. F.E.C. incited a
lot of debate. President Obama even called it out in his state of the union address in 2010. He
said, I dont think American elections should be bankrolled by Americas most powerful
interests (Document O). But the ruling was, in fact, constitutional. The electioneering speech
made by Citizens United is protected by the First Amendment, and that makes any arguments
about the Framers of the Constitution irrelevant. It doesnt matter who funded the movie. The
first amendment was the first thing the Framers added to the Bill of Rights. It was the most
important thing to them. Because a democracy cant function without free speech. If I could have
had another document to help me write this, I would have liked to have an example of how this
case impacted an actual campaign in order to show how instrumental that case was to helping

Mae Gilligan
Period 4
12/31/15
Constitutional Citizens United
campaigns. It would be very helpful to show how an interest group used this case to defend an
electioneering communication, and would help me to make clear how this case changed
campaign finance. Because it was instrumental. Campaigns require maximum money to get out
maximum information, in order to give our democracy maximum representation, and they can,
thanks to this constitutional case.