Question

What are the arguments that agree (i.e., support), and disagree (i.e., against) with the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the First Amendment right to free speech was violated by the Federal Election Commission’s restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations and unions?

Answer 1

What are the arguments that agree (i.e., support), and disagree (i.e., against) with the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled the First Amendment right to free speech was violated by the Federal Election Commission's restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations and unions?

The arguments made by the Supreme Court to permit campaign contribution by the unions and corporations are violation of the first amendment right to free speech. The judges favoring to lift the ban said that first amendment right scrutiny does not endorse placing a limit on campaign contribution. According to them the government should not be allowed to control participation in the politics. According to the court, an individual should be allowed to contribute to political campaign without any limitation. The chief justice extended the argument that lifting ban decision was taken due to preventing unwanted government interference to protect political speech. He said that many people liked to see fewer commercials on television supporting a candidate or disparaging the conduct of opponent but such popular opposition does not foster the conservative approach of law to protect rights of people mentioned in the first amendment. He said that if the first amendment considers funeral protests, flag burning and Nazi parades despite intense opposition and criticism, it should protect political speech despite opposition of people (Liptak, 2014). Chief justice in this case also explained that people spending a huge amount of money for political campaign might not necessarily garnered undue influence over political parties.

But justice Brayer said that lifting the ban on spending by corporations and unions actually attacked the integrity of public governmental institutions. He extended the argument that money could prohibit the voices of general public and democratic system and principles would be defeated (Liptak, 2014). Undue influence of a particular corporation, union or individual in political area and laws made by government can be found as the dissenting judges suggest.

The case reflects that allowing an unlimited funding to political campaign may cause eroding values of democracy because of undue influences of companies and unions as they can shape the political and government decisions in their favor. But banning individuals, corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns provides government an upper hand over political parties and this can also destroy the fabric of democracy. Judges of Supreme Court therefore, in majority decided to lift this ban placed by federal election commission.