Nonsense and Worries in Citizens United and Its Aftermath
Do Corporations have a constitutional right to donate money to organizations that engage in electioneering? The US Supreme Court has recently decided that they do. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that restrictions on a corporations expenditures for electioneering communication or other speech that advocates the election or defeat of a candidate were unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.This case has generated an enormous commentary in the legal literature, much of it quite critical of the opinion. Most of the critical commentary has emphasized two bad results that are claimed to flow from the decision. First, these commentators have presumed that, as result of Citizens United, the floodgates will be opened, sending a torrent of corporate money gushing in and elections will come to be, in substance, more like auctions than democratic choices. Second, many have been quite concerned that the corporate origins of all this money make it much more destructive to the political process. Part 2 of this essay will discuss why these arguments are overblown and unpersuasive. The floodgates were already open, and the problem is large amounts of money coursing through the political process which has been subject to little effective control for some time. The money, not its corporate origin, is the real concern. (Many of the commentators have emphasized technical points of Constitutional Law and traditional ideas of good practice in constitutional interpretation, topics that are beyond the scope of this essay.)Yet there are real worries that grow out of this case, and Part 3 will survey these. Citizens United is less of concern for what it actually commands in this opinion, but, if it is seen as a major step in a continuing journey, it is of much more concern for what it shows about where the journey is going.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 1 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ael|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:aelcon:v:1:y:2011:i:3:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.