Last updated on: 3/10/2016 11:36:24 AM PST
Was the Citizens United Supreme Court Decision Good for America?
Pro (Yes)
Pro
"I think it [the Citizens United case] comes under the First Amendment, that they should be able to contribute as much money as they want."
Source: Thomas R. Eddlem, "The 'Other' Candidates for President," thenewamerican.com, Aug. 20, 2012
|
Con (No)
Con
"Decided by the US Supreme Court in 2010, by a 5-4 margin, the Citizens United case helped unleash hundreds of millions of dollars of secret, unaccountable money into US elections that is drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans and distorting our democracy. To undo the harm of Citizens United and other wrongheaded campaign finance court decisions, Clinton will... appoint Supreme Court justices who understand that the Constitution protects citizens' right to participate fully in the democratic process, and that decisions like Citizens United, which upended campaign finance law, and Shelby County, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, are not good for America."
Source: "Hillary Clinton's Proposals to Restore Integrity to American Elections," hillaryclinton.com (accessed Sep. 30, 2015)
Con
"Reverse the Citizens United ruling to revoke corporate personhood, and amend our Constitution to make clear that corporations are not persons and money is not speech."
Source: Jill Stein, "Where We Stand on the Issues," www.jillstein.org (accessed Oct. 9, 2012)
Con
"Personally, I’d almost rather not see it [Citizens United]. Because I see all the money that’s being raised by these folks. They’re raising hundreds of millions of dollars and ultimately billions of dollars. From my personal standpoint, because I don’t need anybody’s money and I want to do it the old fashioned way. I don’t like the fact that lots of people are getting into the act. So personally, I wouldn’t like. Overall, I’m not sure it’s the worst thing in the world. I would like to see it a little bit differently where it’s not PACs. It’s a total phony deal."
Source: Richard Rubin and Sahil Kapur, "Donald Trump Likes Volcker—and His Rule," bloomberg.com, Aug. 4, 2015
|
|
FORMER CANDIDATES
(Candidates who have withdrawn or who no longer meet our criteria appear below in black and white and in alphabetical order.)
Pro (Yes)
Pro
"We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC...
But just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment…
Two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. First, 'money is not speech.' And second, 'corporations have no free speech rights.'...
As for the idea that the Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens United because corporations have no First Amendment rights, that too is demonstrably false. The New York Times is a corporation. The television network NBC is a corporation. Book publisher Simon & Schuster is a corporation. Paramount Pictures is a corporation. Nobody would reasonably argue that Congress could restrict what they say--or what money they spend distributing their views, books or movies --merely because they are not individual persons."
Source: Ted Cruz, "The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment," cruz.senate.gov, June 1, 2014
[Editor's Note: On Sep. 11, 2014, Ted Cruz abstained from voting on Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United case.]
Pro
"I think money corrupts the process... I do however agree with Citizens United, in that I think speech, whether you pay for it or not, is speech. And the thing is, let's say I owned the Chicago Tribune, I've got a much bigger voice than millions of people, and yet no one is proposing anyone should restrict... what articles they write, and what their bias is... I think paid speech really has to be protected."
Source: University of Chicago Institute of Politics, "A Conversation with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), YouTube.com, Apr. 22, 2014
[Editor's Note: On Sep. 11, 2014, Rand Paul voted against Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United case.]
Pro
"Our political system is at its best when candidates, campaigns and voters focus on ideas, issues and principles. Unfortunately, our citizens' right to free speech and to participate in the political process has been undermined for years by McCain-Feingold and similar laws.
The best way to ensure our political system is less reliant on money is not to pass laws which infringe on fundamental rights, but rather to elect leaders who value policy and principles over politics and special interests. Today's Supreme Court ruling [in the Citizens United case] is a victory for those who truly value the freedoms outlined in our First Amendment.”
Source: Marco Rubio, "Rubio Hails Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Finance Laws," published on his 2010 US Senate Campaign website marcorubio.com (available at web.archive.org), Jan. 21, 2010
[Editor's Note: On Sep. 11, 2014, Marco Rubio voted against Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United case.]
|
Con (No)
Con
"We've got to figure out a way to fix this mess, because basically 50 people are running the whole show… You're going to have money dumped in this election cycle that's going to turn off the American people… There's going to be a need and a movement to try to control the money in politics."
Source: Andy Sullivan, "Here's One White House Hopeful Who Wants to Get Big Money out of Politics," reuters.com, Apr. 18, 2015
Con
"I would appoint judges who don't think corporations are people. We need to overturn Citizens United. And we need to recognize that big money is having a corrupting influence on our politics."
Source: Sahil Kapur, "Democrats' Supreme Court Litmus Test: Citizens United," Bloomberg.com, June 4, 2015
Con
"Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government. Oil companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, Wall Street bankers and other powerful special interests have poured money into our political system for years. In 2010, a bad situation turned worse. In a 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations and the wealthy to spend unlimited and undisclosed money to buy our elected officials. The Supreme Court essentially declared that corporations have the same rights as natural-born human beings.
Our democracy is under fierce attack. Billionaire families are now able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the candidates of their choice. These people own most of the economy. Now they want to own our government as well. The Koch brothers, the second wealthiest family in America, plan to spend some $900 million in the coming 2016 election — more money than either of our major parties spent in the last election. That is not democracy. That is oligarchy. To restore our one person-one vote democracy, Congress must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections."
Source: Bernie Sanders, "Getting Big Money out of Politics," berniesanders.com (accessed Oct. 9, 2015)
[Editor's Note: On Sep. 11, 2014, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United case.]
|
Not Clearly Pro or Con
"In a perfect world, I would say, which we don't have because the Supreme Court ruled as it did [on Citizens United], you'd have very few restrictions for candidates and total transparency. And no other means of participating in terms of contributions to the cause... I think accountability is really what matters, and so if someone wants to give you a lot of money, fine, but you ought to put it on the internet in 24 hours and you ought be held to account for whoever's giving you that dough.
How we get from where we are to that, I just don't think it's going to be happening any time soon."
Source: Josh McElveen, "Conversation with the Candidate: Jeb Bush (Web Extra)," wmur.com, May 29, 2015
None Found
No position found as of Aug. 26, 2015
Not Clearly Pro or Con
"You want to have campaign finance reform? I'm all for it. Let's get rid of all these secret groups. Have anybody be able to write any size check they want to any candidate they want at any time they want, but: the candidate has to disclose the receipt of that contribution within 24 hours, on the Internet. That way, you know who's financing their campaigns. If they then take actions that make you think they've been bought? Then, don't vote for that person."
Source: Claude Brodesser-Akner, "Christie: Let Donors Give Unlimited Cash to Candidates If They Disclose within a Day," nj.com, Nov. 7, 2014
Not Clearly Pro or Con
"There's no question that special interests of all kinds have a lot of influence in politics... Here's my formula here: we've got to have a level playing field so either everyone gets to play or nobody gets to play.
You can't say that companies don't get to play but unions do. You can't say that EMILY's list doesn't get to play but the NRA does. I mean, both sides have done this. And so if we're going to clean it up, and I have no problem with cleaning it up, we've got to clean it up for everybody so that the playing field is level...
The point is, let's have the same rules apply to everybody, and the only way for that to be true, they've got to be simple so we can understand them."
Source: Matt Nosco, "Is Carly Fiorina a Champion of Campaign Finance Reform?," gui.afsc.org, Apr. 23, 2015
Not Clearly Pro or Con
"Well, I think it would be better if somebody wants to give you a lot of money, give it to the campaign. Let the candidate stand up and say, 'Yes, Joe Scarborough wrote me a $25 million check, and I’m a wholly owned subsidiary of Joe Scarborough.' That would be less disingenuous than what we have now, which is this utter separation, no coordination, which sometimes doesn't even work in favor of the candidate…
Prohibit nothing, disclose everything and disclose it on the spot. And let the voters make up their mind. And if you want to beat me up for having taken a check from someone — OK, do it."
Source: Nick Gass, "Huckabee Sounds off on Money in Politics," www.politico.com, June 2, 2015
Not Clearly Pro or Con
"Every time we change the laws, we have laws that we think are worse than laws that we had... I don't know what I believe the answer is, but I will tell you if I win I will think the system works pretty well. And if I don't win, I'm going to blame it on the system."
Source: Igor Bobic, "John Kasich Has No Idea Where He Stands on Campaign Finance Reform," www.huffingtonpost.com, Aug. 12, 2015
|
|
|
RECOMMENDED to you...
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
|
3
|
|
4
|
|
5
|
|
6
|
|
7
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
|
10
|
|
11
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
CITE THIS PAGE
Who is the author?
|
|
SHARE
|
|
