Citizens United

TWO CONFLICTING VIEWS ON A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT:

LIMITING SPEECH OR LIMITING POLITICAL SPENDING

Is a limit on political spending really needed and, if so, is a Constitutional Amendment necessary in order to limit that spending? These are the questions of this topic and we will continue to look at these issues in two opposing articles taken from The New York Times: Opinion Pages. In one article titled, “The Only Way to Revive Real Democracy”, Bob Edgar supports the idea of passing a Constitutional Amendment to limit contributions for campaign funding (Edgar 2012). Edgar shows his position in his opening statement when he advises, “If we’re serious about restoring government of, by and for the people, we need to get big money out of our elections.” Edgar goes on to point out in more detail how this overturn of the legislature affects the people, not the major corporations or unions. He argues that, “Corporations aren’t people. They don’t vote, get sick or die in wars for our country. The constitution was written to protect the rights of individuals, not corporations.” Edgar seems to do a good job at, not only, representing his view, but persuading viewers as well.

On the other hand is Floyd Abrams article, “The First Amendment is Just Fine As Is”, in which he opposes a Constitutional Amendment on the basis that it would limit the freedom of speech (Abrams 2012). For example, Abrams was talking about the many campaign (ads.) he observed when he was in Ohio when he states, “Sometimes it’s aggravating, sometimes enlightening. But always, it’s a vindication of the First Amendment.” With this statement, he is relating the Citizens United ruling as being the vindication of the First Amendment, which he makes obvious when he compares the (ads.) in Ohio with the documentary made about Hilary Clinton, the reason for going to the Supreme Court. Abrams then refers to these advertisements and the documentary as “speech” and adds that the existence of the...