LoginGet started

Citizens United | Radiolab Presents: More Perfect Podcast | Season 2 Episode 3

Radiolab・48 minutes read

On February 26, 2014, Kai Newkirk protested against the Citizens United ruling inside the Supreme Court, leading to his arrest and a viral video of the event, highlighting public dissent against corporate influence in politics. The controversial ruling resulted in significant changes to campaign finance, enabling unlimited corporate contributions while raising concerns about transparency and the effectiveness of the Federal Election Commission in regulating such influence.

Insights

  • Kai Newkirk's protest at the Supreme Court against the Citizens United ruling highlighted the tension between money and free speech in democracy, illustrating how the controversial decision allows corporations to exert considerable influence over political processes, which many believe undermines the democratic principle of equal representation.
  • The Citizens United case, which resulted in a 5-4 ruling, not only transformed campaign financing by enabling unlimited corporate contributions but also sparked significant debate among justices about the implications of regulating political speech, revealing deep ideological divides and concerns over government overreach and the potential suppression of individual rights in the political arena.

Get key ideas from YouTube videos. It’s free

Recent questions

  • What is campaign finance reform?

    Campaign finance reform refers to efforts aimed at regulating the financial contributions made to political campaigns and candidates. The goal of such reforms is to ensure transparency, reduce the influence of money in politics, and promote fair competition among candidates. This often involves setting limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can donate, as well as requiring disclosure of funding sources. The debate surrounding campaign finance reform is complex, as it intersects with First Amendment rights, particularly regarding free speech and the role of corporations in political funding. Advocates argue that reform is necessary to prevent corruption and ensure that all voices are heard in the democratic process, while opponents often contend that such regulations infringe upon free speech rights.

  • How does money influence politics?

    Money influences politics primarily through campaign contributions, which can significantly impact the electoral process and policy decisions. Wealthy individuals and organizations can provide substantial financial support to candidates, often leading to a greater likelihood of those candidates winning elections. This financial backing can also result in candidates prioritizing the interests of their donors over those of their constituents. Additionally, the rise of super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds for political advocacy, has further amplified the role of money in politics. Critics argue that this creates an uneven playing field, where candidates with more financial resources can dominate the political landscape, potentially undermining the principles of democracy and equal representation.

  • What is the Citizens United ruling?

    The Citizens United ruling refers to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, issued in 2010. This landmark ruling held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts cannot be limited under the First Amendment, as it constitutes free speech. The decision effectively allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, leading to the creation of super PACs that can raise and spend vast sums of money to influence elections. The ruling has been highly controversial, with critics arguing that it has led to an influx of money in politics, diminishing the voice of individual voters and increasing the power of special interests in the electoral process.

  • What are super PACs?

    Super PACs, or "independent expenditure-only committees," are organizations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. They emerged following the Citizens United ruling, which allowed for unrestricted corporate and union spending in elections. Super PACs operate independently from candidates' campaigns, meaning they cannot coordinate directly with them. However, they can engage in activities such as running advertisements, conducting outreach, and mobilizing voters. While super PACs can amplify the voices of their supporters, they have also raised concerns about the potential for corruption and the overwhelming influence of wealthy donors in the political process, as they can significantly shape electoral outcomes through their financial power.

  • What are disclosure laws in politics?

    Disclosure laws in politics are regulations that require individuals and organizations involved in political funding to publicly report their contributions and expenditures. These laws aim to promote transparency in the political process by ensuring that voters are aware of who is financing campaigns and political activities. Disclosure requirements can include the identification of donors, the amounts contributed, and the purposes of the spending. While these laws are intended to prevent corruption and promote accountability, there are challenges, such as loopholes that allow for "dark money" contributions—funds that can be donated anonymously, making it difficult to trace the sources of political influence. The effectiveness of disclosure laws is often debated, particularly in light of the complexities introduced by super PACs and other independent spending entities.

Related videos

Summary

00:00

Supreme Court Protest Against Citizens United

  • On February 26, 2014, in Washington D.C., Kai Newkirk and Ryan Clayton prepared for a significant protest at the Supreme Court, rehearsing their actions multiple times in a cold metro station.
  • After taking the metro and walking to the Supreme Court, they waited in line, went through security, and entered the grand chamber filled with marble carvings and portraits of historical lawmakers.
  • Once inside, they took their seats in the spectator section, feeling nervous yet determined, as Chief Justice John Roberts began the session with a case about patent law.
  • Kai stood up to deliver a protest statement against the Citizens United ruling, declaring that money should not equate to speech in democracy, before being tackled by security.
  • Kai was arrested and spent the night in jail, later pleading guilty to three misdemeanor charges, while Ryan secretly recorded the incident, which went viral on YouTube.
  • The protest marked a significant moment as it was rare for outsiders to capture footage inside the Supreme Court, where cameras are typically banned.
  • Following the initial protest, similar disruptions occurred, including a notable event on January 21, 2015, the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, involving seven protesters.
  • Citizens United, a controversial Supreme Court decision from January 21, 2010, is widely criticized for allowing corporations to exert significant influence over American democracy.
  • The origins of Citizens United trace back to the production of the documentary "Fahrenheit 911," which prompted conservative filmmakers to create a counter-documentary, leading to legal challenges regarding campaign finance.
  • The case of Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission was argued in the Supreme Court, focusing on First Amendment rights and the legality of corporate funding in political advertising.

17:41

Supreme Court Debates Citizens United Case

  • The documentary focuses on the Supreme Court case involving Citizens United, emphasizing the repeated mention of the term "documentary" by attorney Ted Olson to highlight its public interest nature.
  • Olson argues that Citizens United's film about Hillary Clinton does not constitute electioneering, as it avoids direct advocacy phrases like "vote for" or "defeat."
  • The court identifies eight phrases that classify content as electioneering, which subjects it to regulation under campaign finance laws.
  • The government’s lawyer, Malcolm Stewart, contends that if an ad is interpreted solely as an appeal to vote for or against a candidate, it qualifies as express advocacy.
  • Stewart illustrates that advertisements, including infomercials, can be regulated if they appear to advocate for a candidate, raising questions about the boundaries of such regulations.
  • Chief Justice Roberts and other justices probe the implications of regulating political speech, questioning if books or DVDs could be banned if deemed electioneering.
  • Stewart asserts that Congress could restrict corporate treasury funds for political advocacy, but insists this does not equate to banning political speech outright.
  • The justices debate the potential for government overreach in regulating political speech, particularly regarding the publication of books that may contain express advocacy.
  • The justices' conference room is described as a private space where they discuss cases and vote, with a notable split between liberal and conservative justices on the Citizens United case.
  • Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the swing vote, is highlighted for his unpredictable decisions, influencing significant rulings on various political and social issues throughout his tenure.

33:33

Kennedy's Legacy on Free Speech and Politics

  • Anthony Kennedy's formative experiences in Sacramento, California, and his Catholic upbringing influenced his worldview, particularly his fear of government overreach and authoritarianism.
  • Kennedy's reading of George Orwell's "1984" profoundly impacted him, highlighting the dangers of government surveillance and control over individual thought and expression.
  • During his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 1987, Kennedy emphasized the importance of a "zone of liberty" where individuals can assert their rights against government intrusion.
  • In the Citizens United case, Kennedy argued against campaign finance laws that limit political speech, asserting that such restrictions are unconstitutional and undermine free expression.
  • Justice David Souter, in contrast, expressed concern that unlimited corporate spending in elections could suppress the rights of others, advocating for a balance between liberty and equality.
  • Souter's dissent, which criticized the court's decision as judicial activism, was never published due to the timing of his retirement and the court's decision to hold the case for re-argument.
  • The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v. FEC, with Kennedy stating that political speech is essential in a democracy, regardless of whether it comes from individuals or corporations.
  • The ruling led to an influx of money in politics, enabling super PACs to raise unlimited funds, significantly altering the political landscape and campaign financing.
  • President Obama publicly criticized the decision during a State of the Union address, warning that it would open the floodgates for special interests and foreign corporations in elections.
  • Despite widespread criticism, some, like Judge Alex Kaczynski, defended the ruling, arguing that it upheld the principle of free speech for collective entities like unions and associations.

50:16

Impact of Citizens United on Political Funding

  • Michael Dorff, a law professor at Cornell, discusses the implications of the Citizens United decision, emphasizing its impact on free speech and political contributions by corporations.
  • Justice Kennedy, despite acknowledging concerns about money in politics, defends the decision, citing disclosure laws that require transparency in corporate contributions to political campaigns.
  • Disclosure laws mandate that organizations reveal their funding sources, but loopholes allow significant donations, termed "dark money," to remain anonymous, undermining transparency.
  • The Federal Election Commission (FEC) struggles with gridlock due to party balance requirements, hindering efforts to strengthen disclosure laws and address the influence of money in politics.
  • A notable incident at the FEC involved a commissioner questioning the definition of "person," highlighting absurdities in the commission's operations and resistance to public input on disclosure issues.
  • Frustrated by inaction, Commissioner Anne Ravel resigned in 2017, reflecting broader concerns about the effectiveness of the FEC and the need for reform in political funding oversight.
Channel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatar

Try it yourself — It’s free.