In 2009, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission; the case went to the Supreme Court, who ruled in Citizens United’s favor. This case reignited a long debate regarding republicanism and free speech. The rise of the American Industrial Revolution led to several concerns over the corporal influences and the quid pro quo corruption in politics. Since the Teddy Roosevelt’s administration, Congress has imposed regulations on the finance of federal election campaigns to prevent such corruption, such as the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, the Federal Elections Campaign Act, and the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA), which banned “electioneering communication” within…show more content… However, restricting people from spending the money will limit the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Framers of the Constitution added the First Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights because they believed that the ability to discuss politics and criticize the government is essential to a self-government; as Thomas Jefferson pointed out “the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people” (Document B). Any person or group should be able to express what he/she/it believes (to a certain extent) without being afraid to get into trouble with the authority. Yes, money can lead to corruption, but money also allows speech. Today, almost everything has a price tag, so limiting the money “reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached” (Document F). If one is only allowed to spend a certain amount of money, one won’t able to pay for as much advertisements, films, or news articles to convey what one has to say and if one can’t propagate the speech to a large audience, the level of discussion will minimize. The fear of corrupt officials does not worth the risk of losing the freedom to…show more content… These big “special interest” organizations, or factions, will always exist, and they will always find a way to increase their influences. “To abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction [is like to annihilate] air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire;” that is a too extreme, and irrational, reaction (Document A). Instead, people should go vote in every election to voice out their existence; the ballots represent the citizens’ power over government officials. Republicanism keeps faction in check, not the elimination of free speech. After all, political speeches concerning elections are chiefly aimed at voters and all candidates spend significant amount time reaching out to potential voters to help them win; this proves that voters “have the ultimate influence” (Document I). In order for people to vote, they need to be able to speak and listen to others
