The Right Marketing Strategy Role for Any Organization

Citizens United - A Primer on the Court Case

Citizens United - A Primer on the Court Case Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation and conservative advocacy group that successfully sued the Federal Election Commission in 2008 claiming its campaign finance rules represented unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision ruled that the federal government cannot limit corporations - or, for that matter, unions, associations or individuals - from spending money to influence the outcome of elections. The ruling led to the creation of super PACs. â€Å"If the First Amendment has any force it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,† Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. About Citizens United Citizens United describes itself as a being dedicated to the goal of restoring government to U.S. citizens through education, advocacy, and grassroots organization. â€Å"Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens Uniteds goal is to restore the founding fathers vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens,† it states on its website. Origins of Citizens United Case The Citizens United legal case stems from the groups intention to broadcast â€Å"Hillary: The Movie,† a documentary it produced that was critical of then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who at the time was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The film examined Clintons record in the Senate and as the first lady to President Bill Clinton. The FEC claimed the documentary represented electioneering communications as defined by the McCain-Feingold law, known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. McCain-Feingold prohibited such communications by broadcast, cable, or satellite within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Citizens United challenged the decision but was turned away by the District Court for the District of Columbia. The group appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Citizens United Decision The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United overruled two lower-court rulings. The first was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate political spending. The second was McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the 2002 McCain-Feingold law banning â€Å"electioneering communications† paid for by corporations. Voting with the Kennedy in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts and associate justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Dissenting were justices John P. Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kennedy, writing for the majority, opined: Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. The four dissenting justices described the majority opinion as a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. Opposition to Citizens United Ruling President Barack Obama leveled perhaps the most vocal criticism of the Citizens United decision by directly taking on the Supreme Court, saying the five majority justices â€Å"handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists.† Obama lashed out at the ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address. With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections, Obama said during his address to a joint session of Congress. I dont think American elections should be bankrolled by Americas most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, the president said. And Id urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems. In the 2012 presidential contest, though, Obama softened his stance on super PACs and encouraged his fundraisers to bring in contributions to a super PAC that was supporting his candidacy. Support for Citizens United Ruling David N. Bossie, the president of Citizens United, and Theodore B. Olson, who served as the group’s lead counsel against the FEC, described the ruling as striking a blow for freedom of political speech. â€Å"In Citizens United, the court reminded us that when our government seeks ‘to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,’† Bossie and Olson wrote in The Washington Post in January 2011. â€Å"The government argued in Citizens United that it could ban books advocating the election of a candidate if they were published by a corporation or labor union. Today, thanks to Citizens United, we may celebrate that the First Amendment confirms what our forefathers fought for: ‘the freedom to think for ourselves.’†

The Black Hawk War in Utah Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The Black Hawk War in Utah - Essay Example Lyman states that the relationship between the Indians and the white settlers who were mostly Mormons was quite rough (12). Some of the southern Paiutes even converted to Mormonism. However, the Ute Indians had general hostilities with the Mormons and the settlers. During the Black Hawk War, Navajo Indians increased the hostilities by attacking Dixie ranches. Many Mormons and white settlers were killed in inhumane manner. The Indians were ruthless in their attacks. Winkler states that most of the white settlers armed themselves against the Indians and carried out revenge attacks without involving the US government. Indian villages were raided and razed down by church militias. The farms belonging to the Ute Indians were razed down leading to many deaths due to famine between 1866 and 1869. Winkler states that on 18 July 1865, Mormon militias killed tens of Native Americans including women and children (13). Furthermore, the Indians that were captured during cattle raids were exposed to extreme torture methods in order to reveal the place where other tribes were hiding. Lyman further states that Indian warriors captured white traders en route to parts of southern Utah killing them (7). The major causes of the black hawk war were pressure on Indian settlement populations, destruction of ecosystem and Indian subsistence leading to starvation. This was due to white Settlement expansion and latter day saints in open war with Native Americans. Peterson asserts that the major cause of the war was the pressure on Indian tribes in Utah (14). Since 1837, white settlers had been pushing native Indians from their homeland in the native reserve. South Utah was one of the major areas that were affected. The Ute and Navajo who used to plant corn for food were hugely affected as they lost their land to Mormon ranches. The Ute led by a young chief called black Hawk started to carry out attacks on the Mormon settlements in order to steal cattle for their food. Lyman, on the othe r hand states that Mormon militia due to suspicion attacked some Indian tribes that were seen to be friendly to the Mormons in central Utah (19). These include the Koosharen who were commonly known as the horseless Ute. During the black hawk war, there was an emergence of what was commonly referred to as the Frontier justice for those who were thought to have committed crimes, witch-hunts. Lack of federal soldier’s aid to help end the war was due to the inability to differentiate between friendly and enemy Indians. Reeve states that the system of justice in Utah was crucial as a cause of war. Reeve states that the white’s had formed a militia in order to protect their interests and deal with conduct amongst themselves administered the system. The justice system during the black hawk war led to white settlers to engage in excess in legal constraints. Indian women and children were also killed after being caught as captives. In addition to this, the legal authority was a ccused of excesses. However, the legal system would let these blatant forms of murder and human rights abuses unpunished. Winkler states that Indians chiefs had their own system of justice. In the case of Joseph and Robert Perry’s murder, Indian chiefs prosecuted the Navajos who had participated in the murder by punishing them (6). However, Winkler states th