CORPORATIONS TO SPEAK Options Menu: Forum Hillary The Movie (http://www.hillarythemovie.com/) The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In 2010, the US Supreme Court (the highest court in our country) ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations or labor unions, meaning that a corporation could spend as much as it wants on political campaigns of candidates running for office as long as it is not a direct contribution. The case arose from a conservative lobbying group, Citizens United. The case was entitled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The group wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election and to advertise the film during television broadcasts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such action was allowed and was protected under the corporations' first amendment rights of freedom of speech. Do you agree with the decision? Do you see a danger in allowing corporations the ability to spend millions of dollars supporting a political candidate for any office? Why or why not? Do some research on the lobbying group, Citizens United, including its history. Is it really an organization formed by ordinary citizens? If not, who is really behind it? Does this make a difference in your opinion? Before you begin, read this article. I hope it gives you insight as to how such a decision by the highest court in our country can be reversed through a constitutional amendmen
CORPORATIONS TO SPEAK Options Menu: Forum Hillary The Movie (http://www.hillarythemovie.com/) The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In 2010, the US Supreme Court (the highest court in our country) ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations or labor unions, meaning that a corporation could spend as much as it wants on political campaigns of candidates running for office as long as it is not a direct contribution. The case arose from a conservative lobbying group, Citizens United. The case was entitled Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The group wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election and to advertise the film during television broadcasts. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such action was allowed and was protected under the corporations' first amendment rights of freedom of speech. Do you agree with the decision? Do you see a danger in allowing corporations the ability to spend millions of dollars supporting a political candidate for any office? Why or why not? Do some research on the lobbying group, Citizens United, including its history. Is it really an organization formed by ordinary citizens? If not, who is really behind it? Does this make a difference in your opinion? Before you begin, read this article. I hope it gives you insight as to how such a decision by the highest court in our country can be reversed through a constitutional amendmen
