Citizens United
Jonathan Diaz 1-29-13
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision stated that corporations, like people, have a right to free speech, and that the spending money in campaigns is a form of expression, so the result was that it took down regulations against corporations spending money on advertisements directly for and against candidates. The court did not act accordingly to Rawls because I will argue that his concept of restrictions and regulations placed on liberties, so that everyone has a fair and equal scheme of liberties is violated. I agree with Rawls that courts decision is wrong because, I do not agree that corporations should have the same rights as people. Moreover, the courts decision ultimately undermines the whole democratic structure that is in place and supports the rule of the rich because those with unlimited spending for campaigns, will be able to buy elections. To illustrate the rights violation of the concepts of regulations and restrictions, we can turn to John Rawls theory of political equality. Rawls argues that rules and regulations need to be in place in order for everyone to have a fair and equal scheme of liberties. What Rawls means by this, is that not one person will have more of a liberty than another person. For example, the regulation of campaign contribution limited to 2,500 dollars a person. This is a regulation because it does not infringe on our liberty for political expression, but it does regulate and set rules in how to go about this type of liberty.This is important because with the regulation of 2500 dollars, then a person with more money can not give more money to influence a campaign then a person who has less money. However, a restriction does infringe of basic liberties such as prohibitions on certain language The content of political expression can be restricted. For example, a nation has an instance in which the constitution is undermined by a certain type of speech, then it can be restricted By
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision stated that corporations, like people, have a right to free speech, and that the spending money in campaigns is a form of expression, so the result was that it took down regulations against corporations spending money on advertisements directly for and against candidates. The court did not act accordingly to Rawls because I will argue that his concept of restrictions and regulations placed on liberties, so that everyone has a fair and equal scheme of liberties is violated. I agree with Rawls that courts decision is wrong because, I do not agree that corporations should have the same rights as people. Moreover, the courts decision ultimately undermines the whole democratic structure that is in place and supports the rule of the rich because those with unlimited spending for campaigns, will be able to buy elections. To illustrate the rights violation of the concepts of regulations and restrictions, we can turn to John Rawls theory of political equality. Rawls argues that rules and regulations need to be in place in order for everyone to have a fair and equal scheme of liberties. What Rawls means by this, is that not one person will have more of a liberty than another person. For example, the regulation of campaign contribution limited to 2,500 dollars a person. This is a regulation because it does not infringe on our liberty for political expression, but it does regulate and set rules in how to go about this type of liberty.This is important because with the regulation of 2500 dollars, then a person with more money can not give more money to influence a campaign then a person who has less money. However, a restriction does infringe of basic liberties such as prohibitions on certain language The content of political expression can be restricted. For example, a nation has an instance in which the constitution is undermined by a certain type of speech, then it can be restricted By