Citizens United v FEC is arguably the most imperative First Amendment of the new epoch, that prohibited the government from restricting the corporate from spending their finances on political communication, and held that the corporate to be given free speech rights to engage in political spending. The ruling placed the corporate bodies to have equal rights as human counterparts. According to the facts obtained in this case, I consider the ruling to have taken the right course. This discussion paper tries to argue contrary to my opinion which I will discuss in detail.
Justice Kennedy, who was writing on behalf of the majority lectures that congress, in this matter, may not account for the distinction between corporate and human beings in regulating their contribution in political speech. The majority were on the contrary to the Corporate law that holds that corporates are parallel entities that its investors have limited liabilities on the organization.
On the dissenting side, Justice Stevens failed to convince the court to rule otherwise due to the rule of the majority. According to the argument of the minority, the corporate should be regarded and treated as discrete legal entities in which their rights are different from that of their investors, creators, and managers.
In conclusion, the dissenting side failed to challenge the court not because their view on the matter was obnoxious, but because the 5-4 voting overturned their case. I strongly agree with their argument that corporates should not be equated to human beings in matters of free speech in the political arena.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH GRADE VALLEY TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT