160 likes | 326 Views
Citizens United. Bus 303 – Group R: Luke Genereux, Elvin Li, Selma Duric, Jiajun Liang, Thera Chow, Jennifer Gutzmann . Today ’ s Presentation. Electioneering Communication S441B. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)
E N D
Citizens United Bus 303 – Group R: Luke Genereux, Elvin Li, Selma Duric, Jiajun Liang, Thera Chow, Jennifer Gutzmann
Electioneering Communication S441B • Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) • Corporations and unions cannot spend their money on election-related communications which promote or put down a candidate. • This includes broadcast, cable, or satellite communications • It refers to a specific candidate running for federal office • It is within 30 days of election time • It is publicly distributed
1st Amendment • 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.
Overview • Citizens United released a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton • Available as video-on-demand • They wouldn’t come across it channel surfing • Non-profit • It was to be shown within 30 days of elections • Citizens United argued that this ban should not apply to their documentary, as it would be unconstitutional.
Citizens United • Citizens United first argued on narrower grounds that S441B might not even apply • The documentary was not an “electioneering communication” • Therefore, applying the rules prohibiting this speech would be unconstitutional • The documentary does not explicitly solicit votes against Hillary Clinton • S441B should not apply to these video-on-demand movies, and should have an exception for non-profit corporate speech funded by individuals
Citizens United • Citizens United is largely (but not completely) funded by individual donations. Therefore, they’re not using private corporate expenditures. • Citizens United then argued on broader grounds • Government (FEC) is violating the 1st amendment rights of corporations to free speech • To resolve the case, they were looking to the ruling about suppression of speech • the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Verdict • S441B is overruled, so corporate individual expenditures can’t be limited • (a) the constitution said that government would not ban speech, but 441B is a ban on speech. • (b) the courts recognize that the first amendment applies to corporations So corporations are not vastly different from individuals under the law and morality?
Implications • You can’t fine or jail an individual (or association of individuals) for engaging in political speech, but 441B would let the government fine or jail individuals in association with corporations. • The government’s reasoning is flawed. • All the reasons and problems point to abandoning 441B. It is no longer up-to-date, and there are many ways around it.
Stakeholders • Citizens United • General Public • Government • FEC • Hillary Clinton
Ethical Issues • How does this affect the right to free speech? • Should it apply consistently to corporations the same as individuals, or should different types of corporations and situations should have different rules? • What are the boundaries on speech prior to an election?
Ethical Issues • Utilitarain Approach: a particular action is right or wrong based upon the consequences of the action • Deontological Approach: actions are morally right or wrong independent of consequences (rule-based)
Ethical Issues • Moral Pluralism and the Law: A diversity of moral principles of what is “right” or “wrong” Should we equate the legal with the ethical?
Our Evaluation of Alternatives • Get rid of 441B and support the Supreme Court Decision • Keep 441B and limit the rights of corporations • Revise 441B to make it more clear, up-to-date, and all-encompassing
Choice of Alternative 2 Uphold S441B – Limit Expenditure