Spring 2010 101 Research: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Return to Spring_2010_101_Research_Pages
Contents
Research Results (New Format)
Unbiased Summaries/Overviews
Questions and Answers about Citizens United
Richey, Warren and Linda Feldmann. "Supreme Court's Campaign Finance Ruling." The Christian Science Monitor. February 2, 2010. March 29, 2010. Broken Link: Use other link New Link
Fairly unbiased set of questions and answers about the Citizens United case. Some questions answered are: Why are advocates of campaign finance reform so upset? Won't corporations control everything? How will the ruling affect campaigns? Who benefits, and who loses? Can the decision be overturned? Can Congress affect the impact of the ruling?
Description of the Case/Decision/Aftermath
Charles M. English and Jacqueline A. Henson. "Supreme Court issues landmark ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" Lexology.com. 27 January, 2010. 29 March 2010. (You can click here to view the article Lexology's Article.)
This article explains the background of the case, the decision, the effects of that decision, and potential aftermath.
The facts and reactions on the case
Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 29 Mar. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html>.
This article has little bias in its explanation of the court case and where it originated. The decision of the Supreme Court was to remove the ban that limited how much corporations can spend on political campaigns. The decision was based in part on the First Amendment claiming that the ban was limiting the freedom of speech for corporations. The article also looked at the other side which sees the ban as necessary. The people on this side of the spectrum think that all of the corporate money spent will corrupt democracy and will make the election process more about a money war than about which candidate is best. Kinfantine2
Origins of the case
Lindbloom, Isaac, and Kelly Terranova. "Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission (Docket No. 08-205) | LII / Legal Information Institute." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. Ed. Hana Bae. Cornell University Law School, 24 Mar. 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2010. <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205>.
This document goes over the specifics of the origin of the case. It started with a controversy over a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. The argument over it was whether or not "big money" was being used to help Hillary Clinton get elected into office. This document goes over the specific laws and questions that brought the issue to court later on. Kinfantine2
NYtimes Overview of Case
Adam Liptak. "Courts Take on Campaign Finance Decision" March 26, 2010. March 30, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/politics/27campaign.html?scp=1&sq=citizens%20united%20vs%20fec&st=cse
This article from the New York Times explains what the case is about and is a good source for someone who has no idea what the court case is about.
NPR Campaign Reform Timeline
"A Century Of U.S. Campaign Finance Law : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121293380>.
This page gives a timeline of campiagn finance reform dating back to about 1907.Kinfantine2
In favor of Citizens United Decision
Justice Clarence Thomas Defends Campaign Finance Decision
Adam Liptak. "Justice Defends Ruling on Finance" The New York Times. February 3, 2010. April 5, 2010. Link to Article
Link to a summary of a speech Justice Thomas gave at Stetson University College of Law, also includes the 97 minute speech in audio format. Click Justice Thomas' Remarks for a transcript of his remarks and a direct link to the audio. He defended the decision as standing on solid legal principles and denied President Obama's claim that the Citizens United decision overturned precedent.
Citizens United Did Not Overturn Precedent
Coffin, Shannen W. "'Not true': with its Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court struck a blow for free speech." National Review. 62. 3 (Feb 22, 2010): 18. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 29 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=OVRC&docId=A218528869&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0> Link to article
I got this article from reading what Brooks had posted. This article has been beneficial to me because it gives a strong opinion on the side of those who have supported the ruling. It fights the arguments that the dissenters have put against them. It gives lots of facts on the case as well as why the supporters believe what they believe. Kinfantine2
Citizens United is a victory for free speech (Article we read in English)
Ira Glasser. "Understanding the Citizens United Ruling" The Huffington Post. February 3, 2010. April 19, 2010. Link to Article
This is the article we read in our english class. Glasser, who served as executive director of the ACLU for 23 years, argues that the ruling has been misinterpreted by liberals and democrats. He sees this ruling as a victory for free speech and does not believe that the government has the authority to regulate any kind of speech, whether it originates from a person or a corporation.
The ruling is a "Free Speech Landmark"
"A Free Speech Landmark." Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Election Spending. The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com, 22 Jan. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016843479815072.html>.
This article is another opinion piece that effectively argues why the ruling was the right decision. Kinfantine2
Against Citizens United Decision
The Case's Potential Effects on Judicial Elections
Adam Skaggs. "Judging for Dollars" The New Republic.com April 3, 2010. April 5, 2010. Link to Article
Claims that while everyone is worried about what the Citizens United decision will do to Congressional elections, potentially the ruling will have an even bigger effect on judicial elections. The author takes a very negative view of the ruling, however he provides evidence to support his position. There are links in that article to multiple polls, studies, and articles that all serve to reinforce his ideas.
High Court Should Stick to Precedent
Sidney W. Kilgore. "High court should stick to precedent" September 12, 2010. March 30, 2010. St. Petersburg Times Article
This article talks about how the courts should not stick to precedent in upholding the decisions of lower federal courts that affirmed the constitutionality of the campaign finance law at issue like some people want the Supreme Court to. The example they give is that if did this in 1889, thus letting the Jim Cow laws go on. The Supreme Court gave corporations rights but no African Americans. It urges the Supreme court to not make the same mistake again.
Supreme Court has confused metaphor with reality
Dahlia Lithwick. "The Pinocchio Project: Watching as the Supreme Court turns a corporation into a real live boy" January 21, 2010. April 12, 2010. Link to Article
This article talks about how the Supreme Court has constructed a legal fiction that corporations are persons. The author says that "a legal fiction that has come to life today, a sort of constitutional Frankenstein moment when corporate speech becomes even more compelling than the "voices of the real people" who will be drowned out."
Brainstorming Research Results
Political Science / Law databases ([1])
Law reviews
Introductions/Summaries of the Case
- http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205 (Very good introduction to the case including facts of the case, the Constitutional questions of the case, and the conclusion. Also has links to full audio of the oral arguments + rearguments)
- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html (Full text of the decision, including Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, Justice Stevens' dissent joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer, and Justice Thomas' opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.)
Times for Meeting with Alfino
Rebnenn 203 - By St. Al's
9:15 on Tuesday, April 13
Nick's Notes
