Mar
5
Citizens United – Tina Jing Ru Shen
March 5, 2015 | Leave a Comment
Last semester, I took a class in American Government, and came across the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In the class, I did not read The New Yorker article, which provided much defense for Citizens United’s actions. What I like about the article is that it provides “behind the scenes” information about the origin of the problem. I am shocked from what I have read, but I hope there is some exaggeration or misinterpretation of the facts in this article, so what it states are not completely true.
In response to ACLU review on the Citizens United case, I agree with the author of the article that companies should be granted freedom of speech and freedom of finance. Like individuals, companies (that are basically a conglomerate of individuals) should also have the same freedoms. However, there have been cases in which companies take advantage of these freedoms and negatively influence the common good. As seen in the documentary Food Inc., large companies that use genetically modified organisms, chemical pesticides and herbicides lobby to politicians and government officials so that their harmful products can be maintained in the market. Although companies should have the same freedoms as us, they should be strictly monitored because their impact on society, politics, and the economy is immense. The McCain-Feingold law regulates the amount of money politicians can take from outside sources such as companies for their campaigns, which is a good idea to prevent large organizations from having a huge impact on the politicians’ goals.
In addition to lobbying, large companies have abused their power through an erroneous form of freedom of speech. Citizens United aired a documentary debasing Hillary Clinton shortly before her presidential election in 2008. The company violated the McCain-Feingold law that states that political advertisement can only be in the form of issue advocacy, and cannot name a politician directly. Also, the law states that the ad cannot be broadcast within thirty days before a primary or sixty days prior to the general election. Since today, I solely believed that Citizens United abused its freedom of speech when it broadcast a documentary directly targeting Hillary Clinton, and right before the elections. But after reading The New Yorker, and after imagining how Citizens United’s situation would be dealt with if it was for an individual, the organization is not entirely wrong in believing that they have the freedom to release the film. In fact, the documentary seems to be an equivalent of a protest.
The New Yorker article clearly sides with Citizens United, as it lists defenses for the organization and refers to the court decision as “despairing.” The article may be biased, and that is why the defenses for Citizens United makes the court look bad. One appalling piece of information that The New Yorker describes is how Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 was released shortly before the presidential election, which attacked President Bush. Because Moore was able to do this without the government regulating it, Citizens United reasoned that it could do the same. Why didn’t the government stop Fahrenheit 9/11 from airing right before the election? Or did they deem the documentary as more issue-based, so that is why they did not say anything?
The New Yorker article detailing the case was interesting, as it also discusses each of the Supreme Court justices and their views. I wish I had this article handy when I was writing essays about this case last semester! However, the writing shows a bias towards the Citizens United. Though I understand that Citizens United’s actions on the basis of personal freedom, but they did violate a law that clearly states that such conduct is prohibited. As I mentioned, companies should have the same freedoms as individuals have, but they should be monitored because they have more say in the community, and may possibly take advantage of their magnified freedoms. Abusing freedoms of finance and speech can heavily impact the flow of politics as well as the common people, only to the favor of corporations who are the highest bidder.
