An academic research paper by Ty Brando regarding the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
If Only Individuals Can Vote . . .
Individuals vote. Corporations cannot vote. So, in January 2010 why would the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) grant corporations the legal status of a person in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling? In this landmark case the Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech. The Court wrongly held that the First Amendment protects the rights of corporations and unions to spend money on political campaigns if those expenditures are not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. This decision gave corporations tremendous political power by giving them the legal status of “personhood.” However, the interests of the People are not aligned with the interests of corporations, and their sole motivation of accumulating greater wealth and political power. In a democracy the interests of the People should be paramount. The decision gives corporations, because of their inherent wealth, far too much political power; therefore, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling should be overturned, and corporate political spending capped, monitored, and regulated.
The Citizens United (CU) ruling remains contentious due to concerns it increases the influence of wealth in politics and overshadows the voices of ordinary citizens, the People. Research since 2010 has found that increased corporate spending has eroded public trust in the political process. In agreement with this finding, National Lawyers Guild member and legal scholar Dr. Justin Schwartz argues that:
To assert that corruption is not an issue, that democracy requires that corporations be treated as persons, that money is speech, and that vast disparities in speakers’ “financial ability to engage in public discussion” is irrelevant to whether they should be treated the same for purposes of freedom of speech—and that to allow the “person” with virtually unilateral ability, because of those resources, to dominate the debate promotes an “open marketplace of ideas”—only illustrates vividly the neoliberal captivity of the judiciary. (Schwartz 75)
Schwartz contends that certain involved (but unnamed) judges adhere to judicial views driven by neoliberal principles which prioritize the interests of corporations and free-market ideologies over and above democracy, equality, social justice, and the will of the People. Furthermore, the CU decision undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” and extends the scope of the First Amendment beyond its original intent, overturning longstanding precedents.
Supporters of the ruling argue that the decision upholds the right to free speech without harm. That political spending is a form of speech and a fundamental right. That it counterbalances the influence of the wealthy and special interest groups. That there is nothing harmful in giving the legal status of a person to corporations and unions. That the decision will increase transparency in campaign contributions. That the removal of restrictions on spending encourages broader participation in the political process for a wider range of voices and interests. That overall, the decision upholds core principles of free speech and political participation, making for a more robust and inclusive democracy.
However, the decision is flawed and troubling as it equates money with speech, allowing unlimited money to influence elections. This is antithetical to the democratic principle of “one person, one vote” by giving disproportionate power to those with the most wealth. It adds to political corruption by enabling the unchecked flow of dark (untraceable) money into campaigns. It does not increase transparency, it undermines it. This erodes public trust in the political system and fosters cynicism and disillusionment among the electorate. It increases the already profound wealth inequality in society, amplifying the voices of the rich and powerful while marginalizing those with less wealth, especially the so-called, “average, ordinary citizen.” Berkeley Ph.D. law professor Richard Hardack writes, “One of the most disingenuous and misguided pronouncements in the Citizens United holding is Justice Kennedy’s assertion that ‘Corporations, like individuals, do not have monolithic views’” (Hardack 51). This is because corporations are indisputably single-mindedly focused on profit and economic growth. The CU ruling exacerbates inequality by reinforcing the correlation between wealth and political influence, furthering injustice. Overall, it prioritizes the interests of the wealthy over the rights and values of ordinary citizens and undermines the integrity of elections, fosters corruption, and deepens societal divisions along economic lines. As such, it warrants strong condemnation and highlights the urgent need for comprehensive campaign finance reform to help restore fairness, transparency, and integrity to the political process.
The CU ruling should be overturned, and comprehensive campaign finance reform enacted to limit the influence of money in politics, increase the integrity of elections, and ensure that the voices of ordinary citizens are not attenuated by wealthy special interests. The prestigious Harvard Law Review published the following finding, “In allowing corporations to engage in independent political expenditures, the Court has effectively permitted them to bypass the regulatory regime that Congress created to protect employees from workplace political coercion” (690). This harmonizes with similar research findings, that the policies established by the ruling should be reversed and effective regulations implemented to limit the amount of money corporations and special interest groups can contribute. This will reduce the influence of money in politics and promote greater fairness and transparency in the electoral process.
James Bopp, Jr., an American conservative lawyer who represented Citizens United, drafted the complaint, and worked the initial stages of the suit believes in expansive free speech rights, including the idea that corporations should have the same rights of political expression as individuals. In a debate televised on C-Span Bopp contended, “The problem is if you limit the money that can be spent on speech, you are limiting speech” (21:52 – 21:59). Bopp sees any restrictions on campaign finance as infringements on free speech and that to limit the ability of corporations to spend money on political speech amounts to censorship. The fact this would and did change longstanding regulations and legal precedents is, to Bopp’s mind, irrelevant. Bopp’s likeminded ally, First Amendment expert attorney Floyd Abrams, who has argued thirteen cases before the SCOTUS argues, “We ought to understand and accept that an opinion like the Citizens United Fund—for all the criticism of it—is simply an extension of First Amendment rights, and First Amendment protections, in a direction which allows more political speech . . .” (Abrams 746).
Bopp’s critics contend that the unlimited spending allowed by the Court’s ruling distorts democracy by giving the wealthy more political power and undermines the principle of “one person, one vote.” Further, that it will increase political corruption or the appearance of corruption and provide undue influence over elected officials. Harvard Law Professor, John A. Barrett, Jr. writes, “The current corrosive influence of money on politics and the dissemination of disinformation are, in the final analysis, essentially problems with how the United States regulates political speech” (Barrett 668). The CU ruling magnifies the voices of the rich and powerful while marginalizing those with lesser wealth, creating an uneven playing field, perpetuating inequality, and injustice. That transparency and accountability suffer and dark money, undisclosed contributions, will flow into campaigns denying the public information as to who is doing the funding and influencing. This is deleterious to democracy.
Associate Dean at George Washington School of Law, Alan B. Morrison, engaging in public debate with Floyd Abrams argues, “. . . the First Amendment does not, in my view, trump every other value in our Constitution” (Morrison 769). Several relevant studies since 20101 have shown increased political corruption and a correlation between increased campaign spending and winning elections indicating that the ruling did have a detrimental effect and that those with more financial resources are more likely to win elections. Since the CU ruling there have been numerous examples of corruption and scandals involving large campaign contributions. Research demonstrates a disproportionate influence of wealthy donors and that policies favored by big dollar donors are more likely to be enacted and implemented. Investigations into the use of dark money demonstrate the lack of transparency undermines public trust in the political process making it difficult to hold politicians accountable for their actions.
Bopp argues that there is no distortion of democracy; in fact, democracy is better served by allowing unchecked spending in the political process. However, numerous studies have compared spending trends before and after the ruling and find that spending by the wealthy has increased greatly. This demonstrates the impact of the ruling on the proliferation of greater influence by the wealthy in politics. Quantitative surveys and polls reveal widespread public dissatisfaction with the role of money in politics and correctly believe the system is biased in favor of wealthy interests. William Alan Nelson II, a Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School concluded that there is, “. . . ample empirical evidence that there is virtually no actual difference between independent and coordinated expenditures and that independent expenditures can and do lead to corruption and the appearance of corruption” (Nelson 75). Thus, there is compelling scientific evidence of the erosion of trust in the political process resulting from unlimited political spending.
Bopp contends there will not be any increased corruption and influence peddling emerging from the ruling. However, quantitative studies have shown a strong correlation between greater spending and electoral success. Those with greater financial resources are more likely to win. This is numerical proof of the disproportionate influence of money in politics. Scholars like best-selling author and winner of numerous prizes for investigative journalism, Jane Mayer, have rightly pointed out that, “. . . what came to be called dark money . . . groups that claimed the right to spend on elections without disclosing their donors. As a result, the American political system became awash in unlimited, untraceable cash” (Mayer 229). Quantitative reviews of policy outcomes find that those with more money are more likely to achieve desired policy changes or legislation.
Bopp contends the ruling will not lead to greater inequality and unfairness in the political process. However, research has shown the disproportionate influence of wealth leading to policies favored by the wealthy, more so than policies and outcomes favored by the public, demonstrating a greater gap between the rich and the poor. Bopp argues the decision will provide greater transparency and accountability. However, investigations into the use of dark money in politics reveal otherwise. The public is now more in the dark, denied information regarding who is funding political advertisements and influencing elected officials. This undermines public trust and makes it more difficult to hold politicians accountable.
Effective solutions and reform require implementing campaign finance regulations to limit the influence of money in politics. Policies that enable and promote greater transparency in political spending would help restore public trust and confidence and make elections fairer. Positions opposing the CU ruling are deeply rooted in the foundational principles of democracy, equality, fair play, and justice. Dr. Luigi Cerri, expert in political economics writes:
But if the excessive power of corporations is to be reversed, citizens must have a plan that is more than reactive to the latest news cycle. Formulating such a plan will require an understanding of the legal basis of corporate action, since corporations would have no power without the legal system that sustains them. (Cerri 274, 275)
At the core of this stance is the fundamental belief that in a fair and functional democracy, every citizen should have an equal voice in the political process, regardless of their wealth or social standing. This conviction stems from the understanding that political decisions ought to be guided by the collective will of the People, instead of the undue influence of affluent corporations, individuals, or special interest groups.
Drawing parallels with the moral and ethical stands of notable figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK, Jr.) and Henry David Thoreau (HDT), it is noteworthy that they also courageously confronted unjust laws and systems, like the CU ruling. In his celebrated, “Letters from a Birmingham Jail,” King rightly claimed, “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (King 179). The CU ruling certainly degrades humanity by giving the same rights and freedoms to a non-human entity – corporations. MLK Jr’s relentless efforts to combat racial segregation, a systemic injustice that brazenly contradicted principles of equality and democracy, are a poignant reminder of the necessity to challenge and reform unjust policies and legislation. Similarly, HDT’s “Civil Disobedience” advocacy for individual conscience and moral autonomy highlights the obligation to resist laws that violate democratic principles and infringe upon individual rights.
To align with the legacies of MLK, Jr. and HDT is to embrace a moral imperative to oppose the CU ruling and advocate for comprehensive campaign finance reform. To do so is to honor their commitment to fairness, equality, and democracy, and work towards restoring integrity and equity to the political process. This undertaking helps to ensure that the voices of all citizens are heard, and that political decisions are guided by the principles of justice, fairness, and the common good.
Annotated Bibliography
Abrams, Floyd, et al. “Debate on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Albany Law Review, vol. 76, no. 1, 2012, pp. 757-.
This is the annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. We have here a scholarly debate between attorneys Abrams and Morrison. Floyd Abrams, partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (his victories before the United States Supreme Court range from the Pentagon Papers case N.Y. Times v. Sullivan to Citizens United) debates Alan B. Morrison, Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service, George Washington School of Law. Morrison co-founded the Public Citizen Litigation Group and has argued twenty cases before the United States Supreme Court. Abrams agrees with the SCOTUS ruling, saying there is much legal precedent allowing corporations First Amendment protection, mostly involving the press. That they have been thus protected for a long time. That there is nothing new about large campaign donations. As an example, he mentions the billionaire, George Soros. Abrams believes Citizens United does not harm the nation, it improves it and contributes. Mr. Morrison, however, opposes the SCOTUS ruling. He believes it a naked power play by the SCOTUS; that their personal political prejudices are showing, and they are just doing whatever they want sans a proper interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. He points out that not everyone has the same rights under the First Amendment, for example student newspapers, prisoners, and foreigners. That the First Amendment does not overrule every other value in the Constitution. Morrison advocates a Constitutional amendment to clarify the scope of the First Amendment. He rightly points out that corporations do not have a right to vote. Both legal experts have subjective views, rooted in their personal interpretation of laws and legal precedents. They are imminently qualified as scholarly sources. This published debate fits nicely into my area of research and supports my conclusions.
Barrett, John A. “Free Speech has Gotten Very Expensive: Rethinking Political Speech Regulation in a Post-Truth World.” St. John’s Law Review, vol. 94, no. 3, 2021, pp. 615–69.
This is the annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. University of Toledo law professor Barrett argues that since the Citizens United v. FEC ruling by the SCOTUS, campaign spending has grown exponentially, and with it the corrupting influence of money in politics became ever more entrenched. A major reason for the dramatic increases in spending is the development of super political action committees (“PACs”) — independent advocacy committees that can accept unlimited contributions, which arose as a consequence of the 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Super PACs have no restrictions on the size of contributions people can make – they can spend unlimited amounts on behalf of a candidate. Frequently, the amount spent by super PACs on behalf of a candidate can equal or exceed the amount spent by the campaign itself. Barrett further argues that the Constitution’s system of checks and balances are failing, as independent branches of government and independent agencies appear to have become agents of an ever-growing executive branch. Therefore, he argues for a restructuring of American democracy to rectify this. Barrett is a qualified, reliable, credible source. He earned his juris doctorate from Harvard University and is widely published in international law, art law, bankruptcy, corporate law, and environmental law. His views are subjective but rooted in his understanding of applicable legislation. This information supports the claims made in this essay against the SCOTUS ruling.
Buying the Electorate: An Empirical Study of the Current Campaign Finance Landscape and How the Supreme Court Erred by Not Revisiting Citizens United. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2101309.
This is an annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. This article provided ample empirical evidence that there is no actual difference between independent and coordinated expenditures and that independent expenditures can and do lead to corruption and the appearance of corruption. It presented empirical evidence of individuals creating shell corporations to conceal the source of political expenditures and non-profit corporations being used to conceal the identities of those making them. The Supreme Court had a chance to revisit the Citizens United holding considering this evidence but refused to do so. This source is reliable, credible, and current. William Alan Nelson II is a Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School; Judicial Law Clerk, Board of Veterans’ Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs; Articles Editor, Veterans Law Review; Managing Associate Editor, Wealth Strategies Journal Member; Legal Writing Institute. B.S., May 2004, University of Tulsa. J.D., with Honor, May 2007, University of Tulsa College of Law. LL.M. in International and Comparative Law, May 2008, George Washington University Law School. The research is rooted in scientific analysis. The facts are well documented and support my conclusions.
“Campaign Finance and Free Speech.” C-SPAN.org, 16 May 2014, www.c-span.org/video/?319443-4/campaign-finance-free-speech.
This is the annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. In a debate from 05/24/16 on C-Span, Attorney James Bopp, Jr. argued that high dollar donors (i.e., corporations) are more transparent and therefore more accountable; that to limit spending is to limit free speech rights under the First Amendment; that to limit spending is actually an attempt to silence dissent and criticism; that his opponents are guilty of having one set of (permissive) rules for labor unions and a more restrictive set for corporations. He argues that the right to speak must be equally applied, that it would be wrong to ban any number/quantity of ads that an opponent does not like. This source was involved in the actual case and is germane and helpful for my research about the SCOTUS case, Citizens United v. FEC. Bopp himself articulates views that oppose my argument against the 5-4 ruling by the SCOTUS (which found in favor of Citizens United) granting corporations the legal status and rights of an individual person. James Bopp, Jr., an American conservative lawyer, represented Citizens United, drafting the complaint, and working in the initial stages of the suit before the SCOTUS. Bopp is considered an expert in First Amendment Law, Campaign-Finance Law, Constitutional Law, Election Law, Civil Litigation, Appellate Practice, and United States Supreme Court Practice. He was admitted to the bar in 1973, and the SCOTUS bar in 1977. He has a law degree from the U. of Florida (1973) and many awards, as follows: Indiana Business Journal, Indiana 250: The Most Influential Business Leaders in Indiana 2022 (Law); National Law Journal, The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America 2013; Republican National Lawyers Association, Republican Lawyer of the Year 2009; Legatus International, John Cardinal O’Connor Pro-Life Hall of Fame Award 2005; Indiana Republican Party, State Chairman’s Award, 2001, 2005; University of Florida School of Law, Non-resident Tuition Scholarship, 1971. aw.cornell.edu.
Cerri, Luigi. “Birth of the Modern Corporation: From Servant of the State to Semi-Sovereign Power.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 77, no. 2, 2018, pp. 239–77, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12212.
This is an annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. It is widely known that large business corporations have accumulated enormous political and economic power since the early 20th century. They not only create barriers to entry to small firms in the economic domain, but they also pose a serious threat to democracy by dominating public discourse and occupying a wide range of public spaces. Efforts to halt or reverse the growth of corporate power have been ineffective, largely because they have been entirely reactive. For citizens to reclaim the economy and politics, a new strategy is necessary, one that starts by analyzing the source of corporate power. The method of analysis in this article is historical, specifically the history of changes in the United States of the legal instruments of incorporation and their relationship to emerging conditions in the economy and business. In the first half of the 19th century, corporations were chartered by state governments to carry out public benefit activities, particularly infrastructure projects. These mixed corporations lost favor during the depression of the 1840s and were replaced by private for-profit corporations that continued using the same debt financing instruments employed by states. They were also still regulated by the states that issued their charters. When corporations sought to avoid competition by creating cartels, they had difficulty maintaining discipline and discovered they needed new rights to gain permanent control of markets. This information supports the claims made in this essay against the SCOTUS ruling. This source is reliable, credible, and current. Cerri has a Ph.D. in political economy from the University of Siena in Italy.
Citizens United at Work: How the Landmark Decision Legalized Political Coercion. EBSCOhost. web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=546f3d5d-d349-4d1b-b577-2370be22047a%40redis.
This is the annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United significantly changed the level of political freedom in the workplace. Employees’ free speech rights are no longer protected as they once were. By allowing corporations and unions to engage in independent political expenditures, SCOTUS has permitted political coercion in the workplace. Before more employers engage in such coercion, before more employees face a choice between losing their jobs or taking part in political speech with which they disagree, Congress should act. The Harvard Law Review is known as a reliable, credible, and current source. Its primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. All pieces undergo a rigorous editorial process, and all student writing is unsigned. The research is subjective, supported by compelling legal facts and arguments. This article contains highly relevant research for this essay.
Hardack, Richard. “New and Improved: The Zero-Sum Game of Corporate Personhood.” Biography (Honolulu), vol. 37, no. 1, 2014, pp. 36–68, https://doi.org/10.1353/bio.2014.0013.
This is an annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. Corporate personhood is part of a zero-sum game in which human traits and privileges are transferred to corporations; conversely, actual persons become, without their realization, more impersonal and generic, and increasingly defined by their relations to things. Advertising is the life writing of the non-existent corporate person, which is retroactively created by a form of commercial speech whose “author” claims the privileges of political and religious personhood. This source is reliable, credible, and current. Richard Hardack, holds a Ph.D. and JD from UC Berkeley, has applied his love of history, law, and literature to projects such as his book, Not Altogether Human: Pantheism and the Dark Nature of the American Renaissance; NASA’s History of the Juno Mission to Jupiter; and the courses he has taught at Berkeley and Haverford and Bryn Mawr Colleges. The research is free of logical fallacies, the facts are well documented and support my conclusions.
Kennedy, Justice. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n. www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html.
This is the annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205.558 U.S. 310 (2010) is a case brought before the SCOTUS that argued that restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations was un-Constitutional. The SCOTUS, in a 5 – 4 decision, ruled in favor of Citizens United, that political spending by corporations is a form of protected speech. This decision radically reshaped the landscape with respect to political contributions and advertising. Critics maintained the decision will permit an influx of corporate money into elections and undermine the democratic process. The case is often cited in discussions about the roles of money in politics, the concept of corporate personhood, and the limits of free speech in the context of campaign financing. This source is the actual law or policy, vitally pertinent to the essay I am writing.
Mayer, Jane. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
This is the annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. The SCOTUS ruling overturned a century of restrictions banning corporations and unions from spending all they wanted to elect candidates. SCOTUS accepted the argument that corporations have the same rights to free speech as citizens. The ruling paved the way for a related decision by an appeals court which overturned limits on how much money individuals could give to outside groups. Previously, contributions to political action committees, or PACs, had been capped at $5,000 per person per year. But then the court found that there could be no donation limits so long as there was no coordination with the candidates’ campaigns. The groups set up to take the unlimited contributions were dubbed super PACs for their augmented new powers. Mayer argues the ruling gives wealthy donors a disproportionate amount of political power and influence; erodes democratic principles; makes large donations opaque; and opens the door for political corruption with large donors buying influence and access. Mayer is a reliable, credible, scholarly source. The research is subjective, rooted in sound reasoning. She is a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine and the author of three bestselling and critically acclaimed narrative nonfiction books (including the above book). Mayer has received awards for excellence in investigative journalism; the Ridenhour Book Prize; a Guggenheim Fellowship in connection with the above book; the Hillman Prize; the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize and several other prestigious awards. For her reporting at The New Yorker, Mayer has been awarded the John Chancellor Award, the George Polk Award, the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting, and the I. F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence presented by the Nieman Foundation at Harvard. She is 1977 magna cum laude graduate of Yale University and was the senior editor of the Yale Daily News. This source supports the claims made in this essay against the SCOTUS ruling.
Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail/Anglais (Penguin Modern): Luther King Marti 9780241339466: Amazon.com: Books. http://www.amazon.com
In April 1963 MLK, Jr. penned a seminal document during his unjust incarceration in Birmingham, AL. He was arrested for being a nationally renowned leader of the Equal Rights Movement. He published the “Letter” in response to statements made by eight white Alabama clergymen who were critical of his equal rights efforts. King is a primary source, one who was directly involved in pivotable moments in American history in the fight for equal rights and justice. The facts are well documented. Dr. King (Ph.D.) was a pastor and civil rights activist and leader in the movement for equal rights. In April 1968, he was assassinated for pursuing them. He is considered a scholarly and popular source — both. His “Letter” is integral to core arguments in this essay. The things he advocates in his “Letter” are held in high esteem wherever equal rights and justice are prized, advocated, and celebrated.
Mentovich, Avital, et al. “The Psychology of Corporate Rights: Perception of Corporate Versus Individual Rights to Religious Liberty, Privacy, and Free Speech.” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 40, no. 2, 2016, pp. 195–210, https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000163.
This is an annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. The U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly expanded the scope of constitutional rights granted to corporations and other collective entities. Although this tendency receives widespread public and media attention, little empirical research examines how people ascribe rights, commonly thought to belong to natural persons, to corporations. This article explores this issue in three studies focusing on different rights (religious liberty, privacy, and free speech). Results indicated that larger, for-profit businesses were less likely to be viewed as rights holders compared with nonprofit entities. Although both tendencies persisted across the ideological spectrum, ideological differences emerged in the relations between corporate and individual rights: these were positively related among conservatives but negatively related among liberals. Finally, we found that the desire to protect citizens (compared with businesses) underlies individuals’ willingness to grant rights to companies. These findings show that people (rather than corporations) are more appropriate recipients of rights and can explain public backlash to judicial expansions of corporate rights. This information supports the claims made in this essay against the SCOTUS ruling. This source is reliable, credible, and current. Avital Mentovich, affiliated with the University of California (LA) and Harvard University is an accomplished scholar, and has made significant contributions in the fields of social psychology, criminology, political psychology, and the intersection of law and psychology. Moran Cerf is a professor of neuroscience and business. He holds a PhD in neuroscience (Caltech), an MA in Philosophy, and a BSc in Physics (Tel-Aviv University). In his work, Prof. Cerf helps individuals and businesses harness current knowledge about the brain to improve thinking, leadership, personal development, decision-making, and customer engagement. Aziz Huq is a scholar of comparative constitutional law. His recent work concerns democratic backsliding and the regulation of AI. His award-winning scholarship is published in several books and in leading law, social science, and political science journals. He also writes for Politico, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and many other non-specialist publications. In 2015, he received the Graduating Students Award for Teaching Excellence. He has an active pro bono practice and is on the board of the American Constitution Society, the Seminary Coop, the New Press, and the ACLU of Illinois.
Schwartz, J. (2013). Neoliberalism and the Law: How Historical Materialism Can Illuminate Recent Governmental and Judicial Decision Making. New Labor Forum, 22(2), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1095796013483712
This is the annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. Dr. (Ph.D.) Justin Schwartz argues that putting aside the Supreme Court’s earlier worries about the risks of corruption or corrosion of democracy, despite clear empirical evidence to the contrary, and allowing these “persons” (corporations) unlimited “speech” in the form of campaign expenditures is an example of the highest court in the land being submissive to and controlled by powerful economic interests. Schwartz has practiced law for several large law firms and taught law at several Chicago area law schools. He is, among other things, a member of the National Lawyers Guild. He has been published many times. As such, he is a reliable, credible, scholarly source. His research is subjective, informed by his extensive legal knowledge and experience. This information supports the claims made in this essay against the SCOTUS ruling.
“Opinion of Stevens, J.” https://www.law.cornell.edu, 21 Jan. 2010, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX.
This is the annotation of the above source. I am following MLA guidelines for the bibliographic information listed above. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in his own (official) words, in a dissenting SCOTUS opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, disagreed with the 5 – 4 majority opinion and argued that the final decision posed a threat to democracy. He feared unlimited corporate spending would lead to corruption or the appearance of same; that corporations are inhuman, not real people, and that the sole goal of a corporation is economic profit; that the decision wrongly overturned (cited) precedents; and that the ruling undermined Congressional authority to regulate campaign finance and the influence of money in politics. Overall, he argued for a more restrictive approach to associated regulations to safeguard against corruption and to protect the public from corruption or the appearance of corruption. As an involved Supreme Court Justice, Stevens is a reliable, relevant, credible source. Of course, the Justice has a subjective opinion in this matter (rooted in his legal analysis). Justice Stevens is, of course, professionally qualified. He obtained his law degree from Northwestern University School of Law in 1947 and was a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1975 – 2010. This source was an integral part of the actual case, the focal point of this discussion.
Ty Brando, writer/editor 