Ruby Drizin-Kahn

12/14/14
Period 1
DBQ Essay
For over a century, the issue of how much the First Amendments protects
Americans political participation has been growing. In 1910 out of his concern for
the influence of corporations on the American political system, President Roosevelt
demanded that laws be made to prohibit corporate funds from being used for
political purposes- which lead to the 1910 Federal Corrupt Practices Act. The
Federal Elections Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974 forced campaigns to make
donation information publicly available and limited the amount of direct
contributions that could be made to a candidate. In Buckley vs Valeo (1976), the
Supreme Court decided that restricting a groups spending in support of a candidate
violated the First Amendment. In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign
Finance Reform Act, which barred speech naming a candidate within 30 days of the
primary of 60 days of the general election, if the speech was financed by a special
interests general fund. In 2008, Citizens United released an anti-Hillary Clinton film
which could be played on demand within 30 days of the primary, and thus the case
went to the Supreme Court, who ruled in Citizens United vs FEC that the laws ban
on corporate expenditures was unconstitutional by the First Amendment. Some,
however, believe that the ruling was not in compliance with the principles of
republican government, which entail the people essentially controlling their
government through their representatives. The Supreme Courts ruling in Citizens
United vs FEC was unconstitutional because it violated the principles of republican
government and misinterpreted the First Amendment in its justification of the
decision.

Ruby Drizin-Kahn
12/14/14
Period 1
The principles of republican government were violated in Citizens United vs
FEC because a republican government is one in which the government represents
the best interests of the people and is basically controlled by the people; however,
the ruling allowed Citizens United to spend money for the purpose of discrediting
the Democrats, which would help Republicans get votes. If a Republican candidate
was elected, in return for the votes, the new president would do his/her best to
represent the best interests of Citizens United, rather than the best interest of
voters. In President Barack Obamas 2010 State of the Union Address, he stated, I
dont think American elections should be bankrolled by Americans most powerful
interests they should be decided by the American people (Document O). As
someone who has been through the campaigning process and had to deal with
corporations, as well as a Harvard Law School graduate, Obama would have a
credible opinion on whats fair and whats unfair, when it comes to the election
process. In full support of a republican government, Obama agrees that the people
should be the ones to decide who is in the government which caters to their needs,
rather than the corporations spending ridiculous sums of money to influence voters
to vote for whichever candidate would best represent their own interests. Teddy
Roosevelt, another president, also agreed with Obama in his New Nationalism
Speech of 1910, when he proclaimed, We must drive the special interests out of
politics. 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 a representation in any public office
(Document E). This quote directly links big businesses to politics- corporations will
do anything to get a say in government, even if it means violating the principles of
republican government, which Citizens United certainly did. The 1889 political
cartoon The Bosses of the Senate, created by Joseph Keppler, illustrates a Senate

Ruby Drizin-Kahn
12/14/14
Period 1
in which large bags of money that represent corporations have all the power, while
their tiny, helpless fellow Senators sit nearby, distraught about how to get rid of- or
at least deal with- the moneybags, or corporations. On the wall, a plaque reads,
This is the Senate of the monopolies, by the monopolies, for the monopolies
(Document D). Keppler is a reliable source of political information- according to
spartacus-educational.com, he was a political cartoonist for over 20 years and was
known for being extremely blunt and realistic, in terms of what he put in his
cartoons. Kepplers cartoon is certainly realistic, accurately depicting one of
American citizens biggest worries for the future of the government: corporations
will eventually control the government, and citizens will no longer have a say in the
decisions that affect them the most. This is the antithesis of republican government.
Also depicting the antithesis of republican government is the 2010 political cartoon
Another Dam Breaks, by Matt Wuerker. The cartoon shows various buildings in
Washington, DC being flooded with waves of dollar bills coming out of dispensers
that read corp. $$$ and foreign $$$, and a voting booth at which two people are
casting ballots is about to be flooded by a wave of dollar bills (Document L). The
dispensers with endless money pouring out represent the huge sums of money that
corporations will provide for the candidates they hope to see in office. The wave of
money about to crash onto the voters represents how soon, money will have a
greater influence on government than each individual vote. The principles of a
republican government should be of utmost importance to American citizens, whose
government is on its way to being controlled by corporations; thus, no violations of
these principles- which Citizens United clearly violated- should be acceptable.
In addition to violating the principles of republican government, the Supreme
Court misinterpreted the First Amendment in its case that corporations like Citizens

Ruby Drizin-Kahn
12/14/14
Period 1
United deserve so much freedom that they can spend however much money they
like on political speech in an attempt to sway voters, at any time during the
campaigning process. The dissenting opinion of Citizens United vs FEC states,
Speech can be regulated differentially on account of the speakers identity it was
the free speech of individual Americans they [the Founding Fathers] had in mind
(Document J). The target of the First Amendment was individuals, not corporations,
who have seemingly endless money and power. Also, the government already
restricts the speech of students, prisoners, soldiers, and government officials; why
would it be such a big deal to restrict the speech of corporations as well? A 2010
New York Times editorial- The Courts Blow to Democracy states, They
[corporations] are given special privileges, including different tax rates It was a
fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal
constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans
have to speak out in support of a candidate (Document N).Corporations are not
people and should not be treated like people; therefore, they should not be given
the same rights as people. The Constitution does not specifically say anywhere that
corporations should be considered people. Some think that the ruling was
constitutional because it was in compliance with their interpretation of the First
Amendment. The 2010 A Free Speech Landmark by the Wall Street Journal states,
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision supporting free political
speech by overturning some of Congresss more intrusive limits on election
spending (Document M). However, this information is extremely biased; the Wall
Street Journal is known to be a Republican corporation, so of course they will side
with Citizens United- another Republican corporation. Because of the obvious bias,

Ruby Drizin-Kahn
12/14/14
Period 1
the article cant be used as reliable evidence. Corporations are not protected under
the First Amendment, so their speech can be legally restricted.
The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs FEC violated the principles of
republican government- that citizens have complete control the government. The
jurors also interpreted the First Amendment, in this scenario, as applying to
corporations, when it as really only meant to apply to individual citizens. An
additional document that may be helpful in the analysis of the constitutionality of
the Citizens United vs FEC ruling would be a graph showing the percentages of US
citizens that do and dont believe the ruling was constitutional. This would be a
valuable document because it would show whether or not citizens actually care if
their government is heavily influenced by corporations, and how much of a priority
republican government is for citizens nationwide.