Essay Sample on 2008 Suit vs. Hillary Clinton: Citizens Fight for Air Time

Introduction

This was a legal suit that arose in the year 2008 then the citizens of the United States of America and a non-profit organizations release a video that was sharply criticized Hillary Clinton who by then was a senator. Hillary Clinton was an electoral candidate for 2008 who was vying through the Democratic Party for the presidency of the America. The will of people who had by then come together was to have the permission to air the video footage with television subscribers within a month before the kickoff of the 2008 elections. This paper, therefore, seeks to dig into the issue in the attempt to establish who between the Supreme Court and the Congress.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Citizen United as the plaintiff versus Federal Election Commission as the defendant is a case that the Supreme Court of the United States of America was listening on 21st January 2010. (La Raja and Schaffner, 2014 # 55). The court passed a ruling that the legislation that was in place then were prohibiting organizations and other unions from using their money to fund independent political contestants in their campaigns during election periods. The law was, therefore, conflicting with the amendment which was guaranteeing the freedom of speech. The ruling of the Supreme Court overturned the provision of section 203 of the 2002 Act of Bipartisan Campaign Reforms. This act is also called the McCain-Feingold law. The Supreme Court of America also invalidated two rulings of the Supreme Court that were previously enacted. The decisions were made during the 1990 case of Michigan Chamber of Commerce versus Austin and that of Federal Election Commission versus McConnell.

The ruling by the highest court of the US was an important historical event. The verdict also became a source of debate and immense controversy from the people in the outside of the court. The discussion was both in support as well as others against and severe criticism claiming that the move was to impose a gag on the freedom of choice as well as redrafting the law about campaign financing. Together with these critics was the criticism from the former President Obama who while delivering the state of the union speech in the House of Representatives a week later after the ruling by the Supreme Court. He said that the verdict by the court would lead to opening loopholes for various interests to allow the people to spend heavily while funding the politicians complain rallies. The criticism from the former president annoyed one of the Judges of the Supreme Court who had attended the address in the House of Representatives. The justice got agitated and broke the rules of etiquette in the house by shouting the words to object him.

The results of the Citizens United was the invalidating of the 2002 Act on Bipartisan Campaign Reforms which was prohibiting campaign funding, advocating as well as advertising of individual politicians from organizations during particular timelines in their campaigns during the election period. The Citizen United does not hold any influence on the fact that an organization should not involve itself in funding activities for specific politicians vying for legislative seats. (La Raja and Schaffner, 2014 # 55). The Citizen United, however, permits that there can be the formation of political advocacy strategies for any candidate who is vying for a specific political office during the electioneering period and the election process. It can also subject the organizations under a similar class as individual politicians about the clause in the First Amendment that provides for the freedom of speech. Therefore, the organizations have been categorized in the same category as persons for around two centuries. From a legal point of view, this allows for simplicity about the corporate activities since they receive a similar treatment as individual persons hence leaving them with fewer processes like not being able to retitle all their assets.

In the suit of McConnell versus the F.E.C, the judgment by the court of the United States of America was in favor of Section 203 as legitimate and following the American constitution. The ruling made McConnell rely on the judgment of the highest court of America in the suite of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce versus Austin. ( Cain, 2014 # 37). The verdict was that the government of the United States of America was at liberty of disallowing organizations from using their money to fund and drive campaigns for independent political contestants. The move was tailored as a way of avoiding distortions of the political as well as the elections period by corporations. The step was also in an attempt to curb and shun corruption or other forms of corrupt activities.

The Citizens United decided to obtain a court injunction in the District Court of the United States of America which is in Washington D.C. The Citizen United sought to capture the court injunction to evade imposition of possible penalties which the group was anticipating from the Federal Election Commission. The Citizen United was alleging that Section 203 was not following the laws as used in the case of Hillary Clinton since the video was out of the definition of the laws that govern the elections as well as the people involved in the polls.

The Opinion of the Majority

After the district court passed a judgment against the Citizens United on all issues, the Supreme Court of America issued a writ of certiorari and other argumentations first hearing on 24th March 2009. The court then ordered the case parties to file beliefs on the issues about the affirmation of the validity of both McConnell and Austin should be overturned. The court argued that it was not possible to determine whether the case on lighter grounds in a consistent way with its conviction. This was a move by the court in attempting to justify its views of the constitutional adherence of Section 44b as affirmed in the case of McConnell and presumed as a non-issue in the case of Federal Election Commission versus the Citizens United. (La Raja and Schaffner, 2014 # 55). The view of the court was that section 441b was a strict prohibition that was to cause a total gag on political freedom of speech. This Opinion was only justifiable if it was formulated on a lighter ground to act as a driving force in the national issues. However, the opinions by the majority in the supplemental beliefs as well as the Austin and McConnell case did not pass the trial. (Cain, 2014 # 37). Section 441b of the laws of the country allowed the government to impose a variety of freedoms of speech to various persons seeking to make a speech about their personalities and identity as an organization or as a person.

Overall, the aftermath of the Citizens United also cripples the democracy in the United States of America in matters about politics and political leaders who get to the governmental offices due to the financial assistance accorded to them by organizations. This type of funding results to the political leaders making policies in favor of the organizations or donors that funded their campaigns. Such inclinations influence the democracy where some of the effects may be detrimental to the justice that is present in America. Allowing such forms of aid from organizations and corporations may lead to the formation of laws to assist the corporations in maximizing their profits at the expense of the people of America. Such a practice might be detrimental to the economy as well as the living standards of the citizens.

Making exceptions regarding categorization of the organizations as individuals may be the possibility of reverting and preventing effects of the moves. Another opportunity would be overturning the results of Citizens United constitutionally, and this would be achieved by amending the constitution. While the amendment would perhaps prohibit financial aid from these corporations, it would not prohibit individual people from funding the campaigns of the politicians of choice. The last possibility could be a successful abolishment of the legislation that needs corporations to do their level best to maximize their profits. However, this would not be a proper step as it might hurt the shareholders of the organizations. The nullification of the Citizens United influences would pave the way for American democracy to stand again.

Conclusion

The results of Citizen United versus the Federal Election Commission can be perceived as to corrupt the democratic political system of the United States of America. I, therefore, would agree with the Citizen United that corporations should not get involved in financial support of politicians as this would encourage corruption and economic oppression of the citizens as the politicians would tend to act in favor of their financial supporter. Cain, 2014 # 37).

Work Cited

Cain, B. E. (2014). Is Dependence Corruption the Solution to America's Campaign Finance Problems. Calif. L. Rev., 102, 37.

La Raja, R. J., & Schaffner, B. F. (2014). The effects of campaign finance spending bans on electoral outcomes: Evidence from the states about the potential impact of Citizens United v. FEC. Electoral Studies, 33, 102-114.

We the people, p.400-405 & 456-458