What is the constitutional basis that says money is speech and how does the first amendment not apply?
A central point of debate in recent years is what role corporate money plays and should play in democratic politics. This is part of the larger debate on campaign finance reform and the role that money may play in politics. In the United States, legal milestones in this debate include: Tillman Act of 1907, banned corporate political contributions to national campaigns. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, landmark campaign financing legislation. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) upheld limits on campaign contributions, but held that spending money to influence elections is protected speech as in the first amendment. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) upheld the rights of corporations to spend money in non-candidate elections (i.e. ballot initiatives and referendums). Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld the right of the state of Michigan to prohibit corporations from using money from their corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates in elections, noting that "[c]orporate wealth can unfairly influence elections." Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain–Feingold), banned corporate funding of issue advocacy ads that mentioned candidates close to an election. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), substantially upheld McCain–Feingold. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) weakened McCain–Feingold, but upheld core of McConnell. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the Supreme Court of the United States held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment, overruling Austin (1990) and partly overruling McConnell (2003). The corporate personhood aspect of the campaign finance debate turns on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United (2010): Buckley ruled that political spending is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, while Citizens United ruled that corporate political spending is protected, holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.
What were the arguments in McConnell v federal election commission?
It is a ittle too complicated to explain here so you will need to do it yourself. This site has all the information and background that you will need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v...
Why is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission such a controversial case?
I think what is controversial about this decision is that in an attempt to ensure freedom of speech, the court has weakened our democracy. The decision reinforced the twin fictions that corporations are people (people have parents, have corporeal existence, can be jailed, and eventually die; none of this is true of corporations), and that money is speech (try as I might, I've never convinced a vendor to accept my speech as legal tender, and in most situations, you can't just hand out cash when you're asked to speak).But most dangerously, it ignores the corrupting influence of money on politics. The government has a legitimate interest in limiting donations in an election. For example, if the representatives of Citizens United, had offered each of the Supreme Court justices $10,000,000 to decide in their favor, that's not a form of speech we would want to permit. Similarly, offering a politician $10,000,000 for his election campaign on the condition that, once elected, he enact certain legislation, this is clearly corrupt. By the same token, telling a sitting politician that you'll donate $10,000,000 to his rival at the next election if he enacts certain legislation is similarly corrupt. The subtlest form of corruption, though, is simply donating $10,000,000 to a candidate who has already promised to enact the legislation you want. In all of these cases, those able to donate large sums of money to politicians are more likely to get the policies they want than people who don't have that much money to donate, even, in that last example, when the money has not influenced any politicians to do anything.And this is exactly what has been happening in the US. American democracy has ceased to function, because the policies enacted by government do not reflect the wishes of the electorate. This was analysed in depth by researchers at Princeton and Northwestern Universities who looked at the relationship between government policies and the wishes of the people on thousands of issues. There wasn't any relationship. But when they confined their attention to the wishes of the people in the top 10% of income, suddenly the relationship looked pretty strong. This research reflected a period before the Citizens United decision, so the problem already existed, but the Citizens United decision just reinforced it. You can read the paper here: https://scholar.princeton.edu/si.... And this is a short video give a bit more detail:
What is citizen united v. federal election commission?
Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast. Judgment: REVERSED, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on January 21, 2010. in a 5-4 decision with an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor *My opinion on it is that it changes nothing. If you look at the original holding, all that it prevented corporations and unions from doing was DIRECTLY contributing. They did and still do by way of outside PACs and bundling committees. Really what this did is allow unions and corporations to openly contribute instead of being shady about it. I don't agree with the manner in which unions contribute--against the members' will with their dues. As for corporations, if you aren't personally paying the fee, then it is what it is.
What's the difference between the McCutcheon v. FEC and the Citizens United decisions?
In very brief terms:Citizens United found that associations, corporations, and labor unions may not be prevented from making "independent expenditures" in connection with elections. Campaign finance law at the time prevented any "electioneering communications" within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited all expenditures by corporations at unions. The Court held that this restriction violated the First Amendment's protections of free speech.McCutcheon found that the aggregate limits on individuals' contributions to political campaigns and parties - $123,200 per 2-year cycle, and within that amount, $48,600 to all candidates - were similarly unconstitutional restrictions on individuals' rights. Per-candidate limitations are still allowed - no more than $2,600 per candidate per election - but the aggregate limits went too far according to the Court's plurality.The two cases are related topically - they both deal with campaign finance law - but one focuses on limitations placed on groups, while the other deals with those limitations with respect to individuals.As always, IANAL.More on McCutcheon here: Michael Lee's answer to What happened in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission?
What are the most important decisions Justice Scalia drove and their implications?
The USA has the best politicians money can buy thanks to Antonin Scalia.The Citizens United v. FEC decision needed Scalia's vote. With Scalia's support corporations thru their lobbyists and moneyed SuperPACs (Political action committee) have virtually unlimited unchecked influence over all USA politicians. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. TheUnited States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States.In the case the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications". The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.
Elizabeth Warren wants CEOs to go to jail when their companies behave badly. Is this justified?
It is no more than a logical extension of decisions by the Supremes in cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the decision in which the Supreme Court, on January 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that the laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In so doing the court invalidated Section 203 of the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)—also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, for its sponsors, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold—as well as Section 441(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which the BCRA had amended. The court also overturned in whole or in part two previous Supreme Court rulings, such as Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce(1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).If corporations are treated the same as humans for purposes of civil rights, they should also be treated as humans for purposes of criminal law. Too often, the corporate shield is used to escape personal responsibility for criminal acts. That is what RICO was intended to prevent, but it is cumbersome and rarely invoked. It is far past due for criminals to be prevented from using the sham (or even the reality) of a corporate structure to carry out criminal misdeeds.I know it would be difficult in the present Court, which is so dedicated to protecting corporations, but that in itself is a criminal act. Remember the gangs that almost brought down the economy in 2008? Remember the thousands who lost jobs and homes in the fallout? Remember the repeated fines that have been assessed against Wells Fargo for what, done by an individual, would be criminal misdeeds? Those who perpetrate these acts just keep going on and on because there are no personal hazards to doing it and huge financial benefits for doing it. How can that be okay with society?