Topic 3: The Weak Form of Stare Decisis: Unethical Principles of Corporate Election Law in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the Misconception of Free Speech Rights in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission of 2010
This philosophical analysis of free speech in America will be defined through the unethical principles of stare decisis in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) and the misconception of free speech in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission of 2010. The foundation for ethical abuse of the First Amendment is defined in the increased political agenda of Senator John McCain and Senator Feingold’s push for stricter “soft money” and advertising allowances for political campaign contributions through…show more content… Stare decisis aka. “precedent” defines the systemic and habitual reliance of Supreme Court judges to select certain cases that show a pattern of justice, which are often selectively used to validate political and ideological trends in the formation of law (Adams 5). This form of “weak” stare decisis allows the Supreme Court to allow a persuasive interpretation of past cases, which contrasts the “strong” form of stare decisis that supports these cases as binding. In terms of corporate campaign financing, the prohibition against corporate funding or promotion of political candidates denounced financial funding from these large collective institutions that would have negated the “democratic” premise of elections by and for the people. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) provides the underlying legal restraints on corporate institutions from influencing political campaigns because they have massive financial funding advantages over citizens or individuals voting for a certain candidate. The increasing allowance for unions and corporations to use “soft money” to proliferate advertisements outside of political action Committees (PAC) through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 as a precedent to allowances provided by…show more content… In one way, the BCRA prohibited wealthy individual or corporations from committing large financial donations, which would have to be publically disclosed. In another way, the ban on “soft money” contributions to political parties presents the prohibitions of advertising in “issue advocacy ads”, yet the BCRA also allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to fund massive amounts of money into “outside” groups that could circumvent the political party system. The aftermath of this aspect of “free speech” ideology is a weak form of stare decisis that provided a funding loophole to based on soft money advertisements. The increasingly “persuasive” devolution of Supreme Court oversight of corporate spending for political campaigns allowed non-profit organizations to outspend political party