While we believe that campaign finance reform is an important element in refining our political system, there are a number of arguments against the different reform proposals. Citizens United overturned certain long-standing restrictions on political fundraising and spending – transforming the entire political landscape of the country. Take Action.

Mr. Olson. argument today in Case 08-205, Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission.

“Citizens United” is shorthand for a landmark 2010 Supreme Court case – Citizens United v. FEC – that changed the face of campaign finance and money in politics in the United States. Increased levels of political spending increase polarization In the 2012 Presidential election, the majority of outside spending was a result of the Citizens United decision1. United States Constitution Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The case went to the Supreme Court. The Citizens United ruling, released in January 2010, tossed out the corporate and union ban on making independent expenditures and financing electioneering communications. The unique increase of money translated into an increase in television ads, radio ads, and direct mailings. Airing his dissent could help arguments against Citizens United we already have, in the published dissent of Justice Stevens, which is somewhat meandering and ineffective—not one of … Arguments Against Financial Reform. Citizens United increases political polarization A. A rally against corporate money in politics on the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. It gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the election or defeat of individual candidates. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United’s favor on January 21, 2010. Yet 3. Sitemap. Credit... Drew Angerer/Getty Images Citizens United sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the ban on corporate electioneering communications at 2 U.S.C. A Rally and Summit to Unite Citizens for Democracy. During oral arguments, the government asserted its power to prohibit corporate speech was so broad that it could even prohibit companies from publishing books that contained a single line advocating for or against a candidate. What is Citizens United? Resolutions in response to Citizens United. Most liberals attribute a significant part of the problem to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, which turns 10 years … Materials. ORAL ARGUMENT OF THEODORE B. OLSON ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER MR. OLSON: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Participation in the political process is the First Amendment's most fundamental guarantee.