Supreme Court Decision in 'Citizens United v. FEC' Empowers New Citizen Action
The decision handed down in 'Citizens United' opens the door for our work. It is a 'game changer'.
We should be emboldened by this Supreme Court decision. We should also use it as a blueprint. It is time to follow our President’s example in at least one way, by becoming 'community organizers.'
PrintWASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - The decision in “Citizens United v. FEC” was handed down on Thursday, January 21, 2010, the day before millions of Americans commemorate Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision which eviscerated the Fundamental Right to Life of our youngest neighbors. The “coincidence” of the events is vital for all who know what we must do to overturn Roe.
The non-profit organization for which the case is named describes itself this way: “Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.”
In January of 2008 Citizens United released a documentary on then candidate Hillary Clinton entitled Hillary, the Movie. It intended to release the production within thirty days of the primary election through Video on Demand. It also wanted to run advertisements on television to call attention to the message. Concerned that such an activity would be considered a violation of the campaign finance “reform” Citizens United sought what is called declaratory relief from the Court. Otherwise, it ran the risk of facing criminal charges.
The “FEC” (Federal Election Commission) had determined that Citizens United’s desire to offer the documentary to cable stations for on-demand play violated the “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance law. The group determined that what was at stake was the right of the people to participate freely in the election process. So, they used the controversy as a vehicle to set up the course of events which led to the landmark decision handed down on Thursday, January 21, 2010.
This association asked the US Supreme Court to overrule itself and strike down the most significant restrictions imposed on what is called “corporate” free speech. Remember, “Non-Profits”, the vehicle used by many in our cause, are also corporations. Citizens United contended that the statutory scheme regulating political speech is a violation of the Free Speech clause contained within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court used this case to rule on the constitutionality of restrictions imposed on political speech and expenditures by corporations, associations and organizations through campaign-finance laws. To the shock of some observers, the US Supreme Court reversed itself and overruled the central provisions of “campaign finance reform”. Within minutes of the decision the reactions and the posturing began. The Obama administration called for legislative action to undo the impact of the ruling. However, there is little chance that such an effort will succeed.
The well written majority opinion traces the confused labyrinth of cases and statutes which act to restrict corporate/organizational speech and expenditures related to it. Many observers felt the Court would not overrule itself but use a narrow ground to somehow remedially approach the issue. The majority opinion states the standard for such a rare action as overruling past holdings, “Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error….”
The fact that the Court overruled its prior decisions is very significant to anyone who has set their sites on overturning Roe v Wade and engaging in the kind of massive political action such a result will require. We must persuade the Court to reverse Roe and Doe. This will take massive organizational development as well as effective and sustained political and legal activism. It will also take a lot of money. In addition, we must encourage candidates to run for office who recognize the fundamental human right to life, oppose those who do not and pressure those who waver.
The Anti-Life decisions of Roe and its companion case Doe reached into what the Court called the penumbra of the Constitution in order to manufacture an utterly indefensible and incomprehensible judicial holding. The result was far more egregious than the holding overruled by this decision. By Judicial Fiat, the Roe Court “removed” the Right to Life of millions of our fellow human persons and first neighbors. They then, in effect, placed the Police Power of the State behind protecting their killers.
Roe is grounded in faulty history, relied upon disproven junk “science” and rejected both the Natural Law and the Equal protection Clause of the US Constitution. Its flawed reasoning cries out for reversal. ...
The non-profit organization for which the case is named describes itself this way: “Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.”
In January of 2008 Citizens United released a documentary on then candidate Hillary Clinton entitled Hillary, the Movie. It intended to release the production within thirty days of the primary election through Video on Demand. It also wanted to run advertisements on television to call attention to the message. Concerned that such an activity would be considered a violation of the campaign finance “reform” Citizens United sought what is called declaratory relief from the Court. Otherwise, it ran the risk of facing criminal charges.
The “FEC” (Federal Election Commission) had determined that Citizens United’s desire to offer the documentary to cable stations for on-demand play violated the “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance law. The group determined that what was at stake was the right of the people to participate freely in the election process. So, they used the controversy as a vehicle to set up the course of events which led to the landmark decision handed down on Thursday, January 21, 2010.
This association asked the US Supreme Court to overrule itself and strike down the most significant restrictions imposed on what is called “corporate” free speech. Remember, “Non-Profits”, the vehicle used by many in our cause, are also corporations. Citizens United contended that the statutory scheme regulating political speech is a violation of the Free Speech clause contained within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court used this case to rule on the constitutionality of restrictions imposed on political speech and expenditures by corporations, associations and organizations through campaign-finance laws. To the shock of some observers, the US Supreme Court reversed itself and overruled the central provisions of “campaign finance reform”. Within minutes of the decision the reactions and the posturing began. The Obama administration called for legislative action to undo the impact of the ruling. However, there is little chance that such an effort will succeed.
The well written majority opinion traces the confused labyrinth of cases and statutes which act to restrict corporate/organizational speech and expenditures related to it. Many observers felt the Court would not overrule itself but use a narrow ground to somehow remedially approach the issue. The majority opinion states the standard for such a rare action as overruling past holdings, “Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error….”
The fact that the Court overruled its prior decisions is very significant to anyone who has set their sites on overturning Roe v Wade and engaging in the kind of massive political action such a result will require. We must persuade the Court to reverse Roe and Doe. This will take massive organizational development as well as effective and sustained political and legal activism. It will also take a lot of money. In addition, we must encourage candidates to run for office who recognize the fundamental human right to life, oppose those who do not and pressure those who waver.
The Anti-Life decisions of Roe and its companion case Doe reached into what the Court called the penumbra of the Constitution in order to manufacture an utterly indefensible and incomprehensible judicial holding. The result was far more egregious than the holding overruled by this decision. By Judicial Fiat, the Roe Court “removed” the Right to Life of millions of our fellow human persons and first neighbors. They then, in effect, placed the Police Power of the State behind protecting their killers.
Roe is grounded in faulty history, relied upon disproven junk “science” and rejected both the Natural Law and the Equal protection Clause of the US Constitution. Its flawed reasoning cries out for reversal. ...
Rate This Article
1 - 10 of 23 Comments
Leave a Comment
More Politics & Policy News
- 'Journalism has been criminalized' Juan Williams declares
- Special Report from the Virginia Republican Nominating Convention: A Time To Choose - Life
- Lois Learner pleads the 5th. Was she the crook behind it or was she following orders from higher up?
- Sick of deception! Democrat threatens IRS with appointment of special prosecutor
- FOURTH OBAMA SCANDAL: Did HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicit funds for nonprofit group?
- Carney still insists nobody told Obama about IRS investigation
- State Department insider warns more whistle-blowers to come on Benghazi scandal
- Hillary better be prepared, House Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa says
- E.W. Jackson Wins Nomination as Republican Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia
Featured News
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?
Most Popular
There's the problem! Americans are out of touch with scientific consensus on climate change Read More
Editorial: Is the Scandal Ridden Obama Administration Becoming a House of Cards? Read More
Sex In Uniform: Why the Increase in Sexual Assaults in the Military? Read More
Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Disclose Fight with the IRS, Demonstrate Courage Read More
Culture of Corruption: Why Obama's misuse of Marines is wrong Read More
Daily Readings
Reading 1, Sirach 4:11-19
Wisdom brings up her own children and cares for those who seek ... Read More
Psalm, Psalms 119:165, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175
Great peace for those who love your Law; no stumbling-blocks ... Read More
Gospel, Mark 9:38-40
John said to him, 'Master, we saw someone who is not one of us ... Read More
Saint of the Day
St. Rita
May 22: St. Rita was born at Spoleto, Italy in 1381. At an early age, ... Read More
Latest Videos
BREAKING: British Soldier Beheaded On UK Street 2013 View Video
Mass singing in St. Peter, Vatican View Video
Miss Crosswhite, the Oklahoma teacher that dared to pray View Video
Marketplace
The Ashes that Still Remain
Fr. Koys uses his Civil War knowledge and his love of the Catholic ... Read More
Baptismal Necklace. Conformation Gift. Birthstone. YOUR Name Engraved Read More
If corporations are to have the same free speech rights as individuals, then it follows that they should have the same responsibilities as an individual. They should be subject to the same taxation as individuals including, the alternative minimum tax.
I have to kindly disagree with some. What are Corporations, if not people. Are countries, people? A corporation is made up of people. If a corporation breaks the law, a PERSON, has to pay the consequences. I am not real smart, but if the Court let this one stand, they would have to limit 1st ammendment rights to all. Can a publisher put out a book discussing a candidate prior to an election? Not if this law was in place. Same thing. The book is not a person, the publishing company is not a person, but they are made up by people. I do understand the fear of Corporations $ in politics. Concerned citizens must continue to know what is going on out there. May God's peace be with you all.
I also disagree that the majority in the Supreme Court was looking out for the individual. If an American Corporation can put any amount of money into the election process, how does it prevent multinational companies from doing the same. I guess any corporation has a voice wiether their headquarters are in New York, London, Berlin, Moscow, Cairo, Toyko, Mexico City, or Bejing. Sounds more global community than 'American' freedom.
The Supreme Court decision handed down in Citizens United vs. FEC is NOT friendly to Catholics or the pro-life movement because it further blurs the definition of life. Corporations are not people. Corporations are legal fictions, nothing more than contractual agreements printed on pieces of paper. Corporations do not exist in any corporal form and therefore are not deserving of the right to free speech, the right to due process, the right to privacy, or any other right guaranteed by the Constitution. As Catholics, we emphasize the Body of Christ, as evidenced by the Eucharist and the Church for a reason: It serves as evidence of God’s existence in corporal form. One might as well grant the right of free speech to a poker hand because it represents the interests of the card player. Mark my word: This decision will do irreparable harm to the Catholic Faith and to the ability of Catholics to practice their Faith completely and wholeheartedly.
I have to say I agree with the commentors here. Not a great decision by the Supreme Court.
I side with the above individuals who think that the win of Citizens United v. FEC is a colossal loss for America. This is bad precedence period. It threw out a rare Congressional bipartisan effort to correct serious abuse in our election system. Now it's gone.
Fournier how can you begin to applaud this decision. You are trading godless secular humanists for godless corporate minions who only care about profits. We need an increase in faith, not an increase in bribery. For my part I would much rather see NO corporate or pac money in campaigns. I will continue to pray for "on earth as it is in Heaven"!!!
Okay, I'm a pro-life, pro-marriage Christian, but more corporate bribe money and influence in our electoral system is in the interest of nobody but the Godless, faceless corporations themselves. The effect on issues Christians care about will be negligible. The effect on our thought process and opinions will be huge. This is going to be like a reverse-1984, where instead of the atheist gov. bombarding us with trash, it'll be the equally immoral corporate entities, some of which, mind you, are larger than entire nation states.
We're on track when it comes to limiting government. We need to be equally aware of the other snake in the woodpile, these deathless super companies. God save our republic.
Kathleen Gibbs,
You said "Jesus would love the mother who contemplates abortion as a solution. The problem here is that WE are his hands, eyes, and heart in the World."
Where did you learn this? This is new to me. Can you cite the bible verse?
I disagree with some of you here.
Amendment I guarantees many freedom rights for the United States.
Roe v. Wade could be included because America never decided or voted on this subject.
Its was more or less decided for us without us looking into it.
Cases are considered precident and are often called up and referred to in other cases.
This is more about law than politics.
Pro-life cannot escape politics and law since politics and law decided our genocide of children in this country.
If that case above has anything to do with Constitutional similar to Roe v. Wade then it is very important.
Im only speaking as a regular citizen and no expert but it makes sense to me if you have taken any kind of law class at all.