Few Supreme Court decisions have been misconstrued by so many people in so many ways as Citizens United has over the past decade.
On the 10 year anniversary of the decision, we'd like to revisit some of the misconceptions that still persist today: bit.ly/36dh8s8
On the 10 year anniversary of the decision, we'd like to revisit some of the misconceptions that still persist today: bit.ly/36dh8s8
“Critics’ apocalyptic descriptions of Citizens United – a return ‘to the robber-baron era of the 19th century’ said the New York Times – have focused almost entirely on giant, for-profit corporations, with some mention of labor unions...” 2/
“... Americans are left mostly unaware that the Court’s ruling applies equally to charities, advocacy groups, trade associations, and other non-profit corporations, not to mention small businesses...” 3/
“...Misconceptions about Citizens United also involve its legal foundation. An often heard but erroneous critique is that corporations don’t have First Amendment rights because they are not persons...” 4/
While it’s true that corporations are afforded some but not all of the constitutional rights of individuals, various #SCOTUS decisions recognize that the 1st Amend. protects them, in part because they “contribute to the [debate] that the First Amendment seeks to foster." 5/
...Those decisions also heed the Amendment’s plain language – “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" – which makes no distinction between single individuals and associations of individuals, whether incorporated or not. #CitizensUnited 6/
#CitizensUnited is said to be at odds with precedent. While it did overturn Austin v. Michigan (1990), #SCOTUS believed that the weight of other precedents demanded it. 7/
...In addition to the Supreme Court’s repeated recognition of corporate free expression, #CitizensUnited was dictated by the mother of all campaign finance precedents, Buckley v. Valeo. 8/
The government’s central argument in #CitizensUnited, that independent expenditures can be regulated to prevent the possibility of corruption, was rejected 34 years earlier. This contradicted former President @BarackObama’s claim that the decision “reversed a century of law.” 9/
Even putting the precedent supporting #CitizensUnited aside, skeptics relied on an erroneous definition of judicial activism. Courts owe deference to prior rulings and other branches of government, but that deference does not trump a judge’s obligation to the Constitution. 10/
...For example, Brown v. Board overturned both precedent and the judgment of elected officials, but it was solidly grounded in the text and intent of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and thus withstood charges of judicial activism. #CitizensUnited #SCOTUS 11/
Reasonable people can disagree about how #CitizensUnited should have been decided. However, the majority opinion is too firmly rooted in the words and intent of the First Amendment for judicial activism to be a credible charge. 12/
