Search results
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Mar 26, 2018 · In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that political spending is a form of free speech that’s protected under the First Amendment.
All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech. The First Amendment protects the resulting speech, even if it was enabled by economic transactions with persons or entities who disagree with the speaker’s ideas.
Dec 12, 2019 · In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
Oct 25, 2017 · In short, when the government controls the money you spend to communicate, it controls the quantity, quality, and topics of speech that can be heard in the public arena. If that’s not a Freedom of Speech issue, I don’t know what is.
Jan 20, 2020 · Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Supreme Court majority in Citizens United, concluded that the spending is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be considered a corrupt quid pro quo.
People also ask
Is political spending a form of free speech?
Is money a speech?
Is money given to political candidates a form of free speech?
What does the First Amendment say about freedom of speech?
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that the government must not “abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Free speech has long been considered one of the pillars of a democracy.
