The definition of the First Amendment never ceases to change. For over two centuries, the United States has been defined by this Amendment, this idea that,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
However, for these same two centuries, the interpretation of the most important rights that we have as citizens has been interpreted and curtailed/expanded by the Supreme Court. For the past twenty years, aside from Bush v. Gore which decided a presidential election, no Supreme Court case may have had as great of an impact as the landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC
Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to run a movie on television called "Hillary: The Movie," which was a film critical against the then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in late 2007. The FEC, or Federal Election Committee, prohibited this film from being aired by a law called the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prevented corporations from running ads for or against presidential candidates within thirty days of the primaries. The case arrived at SCOTUS on the grounds from Citizens United that they should be permitted to show their movie.
But, in a shocking display of judicial activism, on January 21st, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment rights of citizens were equal to the rights of individual citizens. They made the case that not only did Citizens United have the right to air the film, but that corporations under the First Amendment cannot be regulated on financing political campaigns in any capacity because they should be legally allowed to use any resources they have to support whomever they want.
This sent shockwaves through politics. With all corporations now being allowed to spend however much they wanted to whomever political candidate they choose, many people were afraid. President Obama was furious and many other liberals were stunned that now corporations had extended power in politics. But, regardless, this decision has shaped politics to this day, where individuals can donate to Super PACs in unlimited capacities, and now, if you have a heaping ton of money, you can spend it in nearly any possible capacity to support any political candidate you want.
Sources:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/?hpt=T2
I really enjoyed your post, and I find it interesting that sometimes the Supreme Court chooses to rule that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens.In other times in history, for example Smyth v. Ames, the SC ruled that the corporations had the same rights as individuals by granting them their 14th amendment rights of due process. While this decision was later overturned, do you think that the idea that corporations should be granted individual rights is valid within modern day America?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.alternet.org/10-supreme-court-rulings-turned-corporations-people