Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit

Liptak, A. (2010, January 21). Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

Summary

This article explores the Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) to allow corporate money to be spent in candidate elections as a form of political speech. Opponents say this will corrupt democracy. Proponents believe this is a victory for the most basic free speech principle – freedom to engage in political speech.

Experience

My personal opinion on this is that corporations are not the same as human beings. The main goal of a corporations is to make money in. most instances. I believe this places them in conflict with motivations of individuals. I would argue that individuals’ motivations tend to be more altruistic than those of companies. Therefore, when corporations engage in political speech, they are doing so with the intent of benefitting themselves and not people.

KEYWORDS: Citizens United, political speech, First Amendment, Supreme Court, McCain-Feingold, corrupt