The Rationale of the Supreme Courts Decision in Citizen United - Essay Example

Citizen United was prosecuted in federal court to capsize the decision, lost and appealed to the Supreme Court.
The rationale of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen United (the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy)
When pronouncing their verdict, the majority maintained that political speech is crucial to a democracy, which is not less than truth due to the fact that the speech originated from a corporation. The majority also asserted that disclosure requirements of BCRA were constitutional as applied to Hillary: The Movie, with a reason that a governmental interest justified disclosure by offering the electorate information regarding election-connected spending resources (Books Llc, 2010). They also maintained the disclosure rules for political advertising sponsors and it maintained the outlaw on direct contributions to candidates from organizations and unions.

The rationale of Justice Steven's dissenting opinion
Books Llc (2010) asserts that in a separate compatible opinion, Justice Steven stressed the manner in which the court handles constitutional issues and its efforts to shun constitutional issues when at all probable. He asserted that here, the court lacked narrower grounds upon which to rule, apart from handling issues of the First Amendment personified in the case. Steven also argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are convincing governmental interests to control the ability of corporations to spend money in the course of local and national elections.

Evaluating both the majority and minority rationales, and explaining and justifying your evaluation by drawing on previous Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment
Even though the majority rationale was right when it said that political speech is crucial to democracy as it influence electorates, it was not right for them to rule against Citizen United. This is because as far as First Amendment has to be observed, all citizens have constitutional rights to express themselves freely and freedom of speech (Books Llc, 2010). Thus, preventing or viewing The Movie to be illegal is unconstitutional. On the other hand, minorities were correct in all assumptions because while they agree with First Amendment, they also bear in mind the right of expression and freedom of speech. Media and film industries should be given the freedom they need at all times including the election period. Read More