Smith 1

Nathan Smith
Pamela Reed
RHET 1311
10/4/15
Current Controversy over Citizens United v. FEC
Never before in our nation's history has such an obscene amount of money been
used to distort the will of the people and give such an extremely undue influence
to anonymous, dark-money donors. We are truly living in an age when
unaccountable millionaires and billionaires can pull the strings of democracy.
(Murphy)
Patrick Murphy writes in Why Im Fighting to Overturn Citizens United, in the Sun
Sentinel news website about a month ago. Murphy, along with millions of other Americans are
opposed to the ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case. Yet, others are saying
it was a huge victory for First Amendment rights for all Americans. (Citizens United.org) So
was the result of this decision good or bad for our democracy? This is the controversy
surrounding the Supreme Courts decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case in 2010.
I feel that the effects of this Supreme Court case are detrimental to U.S. democracy. This
is a very important topic concerning all Americans. There was a large array of reactions to this
case from politicians, academics, attorneys, advocacy groups, students, journalists, CEOs,
celebrities, and many more.
The case effectively ended the corporate and union ban on making independent
expenditures and financing electioneering communications and allowed corporations and
unions to spend an unlimited amount on ads and other political tools (CPI).

Smith 2
The ruling said political spending is protected under the First Amendment,
and that there is not a limit to how much corporations and unions can spend
on political activities, as long as it is done independently of a party or
candidate.
Since the decision, that independent spending has increased
dramatically. According to campaign spending figures compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, independent groups put more than
$1 billion into the 2012 election, with more than $300 million of it coming
from groups that do not disclose their donors.
Murphy refers to dark money in his article. Dark money is funds given to a nonprofit
organization that can receive unlimited donations from anyone, doesnt have to disclose its
donors, and can spend money to influence elections. Murphy says the Supreme Court decision
was no victory for free speech, and he sponsors some legislation that he says will take money out
of politics. He tells of the Koch brothers pledge in the beginning of 2015 to spend $889 million
to influence next Novembers presidential race. Thats just two people. (Murphy) The Koch
brothers have been linked to what many would call political bribery numerous times. Many are
saying political favors are being performed because of all this money being spent.
President Obama has said the ruling has allowed foreign entities to spend unlimited
amounts of money to influence our elections since 2010. He said the ruling was wrong and it has
caused real harm to our democracy.
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanderss website says Oil companies, pharmaceutical
manufacturers, Wall Street bankers and other powerful special interests have poured money into
our political system for years. In 2010, a bad situation turned worse. In a 5-4 decision in the

Smith 3
Citizens United case, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations and the wealthy
to spend unlimited and undisclosed money to buy our elected officials.
Hillary Clinton, another 2016 presidential candidate, recently came out in support of
overturning the Citizens United decision even if it takes a constitutional amendment.
The American Civil Liberties Union recognizes the growing skepticism in the integrity
of our election system, and that the growing cost of political campaigns may make it harder for
certain voices to be heard. However, they do not support campaign finance reform on the notion
that we should not ban political speech. They said they would not support any legislation
limiting the free speech clause of the First Amendment. (ACLU.org)
It all comes down to how we define free speech. The recent Supreme Court decision
ruled that independent campaign expenditures are speech, and that corporations and unions are
entitled to the first amendment. However, many people do not want corporations spending as
much as they want convincing people to vote for or against a candidate, and since this Supreme
Court decision, theyve been spending more and more ever year.

Smith 4

Bibliography
Citizens United. N.p., n.d. Web.
"Why I'm Fighting to Overturn Citizens United." Sun-Sentinel.com. N.p., n.d. Web.
30 Sept. 2015.
"The 'Citizens United' Decision and Why It Matters." Center for Public Integrity. N.p.,
18 Oct. 2012. Web. 04 Oct. 2015.
"As Dark Money Floods U.S. Elections, Regulators Turn a Blind Eye." Newsweek.
N.p., n.d. Web.
"Barack Obama: 'The Citizens United Decision Was Wrong'" HuffPost Politics. N.p.,
n.d. Web.

Smith 5