citizens united v. fec presentation

Citizens United Legal Argument

• Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment; the First Amendments protection of speech is not limited to the identity of the speaker.

• The First Amendment protects the speech itself and not just the speaker; the government would be deciding which voices are heard.

FEC Legal Argument

• Anti-distortion rationale (limitations on spending for elections) was used to argue that the voices of citizens would be unheard as financial resources of corporations could distort political ideas.

• Unlimited spending for electioneering communications would cause "quid pro quo" corruption.

Majority opinion

Corporations have the right to engage in independent political spending under the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled that the government cannot restrict corporations and unions in connection with elections because they are not different from government censorship of speech towards individuals.

Dissent

Corporations are different from actual persons, therefore they do not deserve the same First Amendment rights.

Justice John Paul Stevens argued that unlimited corporate spending threatens democratic integrity and undermines public confidence.