Shannon Sankey Source 2

Can a corporation make a political decision?

• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission., 2014. Web.

This article argues why the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee was not a good decision to make. The article begins by explaining that the decision was made with the justification that the courts wanted to protect the particulars of free speech, not where the speech comes from. The article argues that the definition of a corporation is unclear in the eyes of the law. Because of the particulars of what a corporation is, and federal law can not decide what is and isn't a corporation. This decision can only be made by the state that the corporation is, and this leaves an uncertainty about what corporations will have rights under this ruling. In one state the particulars of what is a corporation can be different than in another, and that leaves room for discrepancies under the ruling. The article also argues that even if a corporation is recognized under the state, there are too many political interests involved that a corporation could not present a unified front on any issue without representing all of the different entities in the corporation. This article point out the flaws in the ruling that gave first amendment rights to corporations.

This source changes my thoughts about the argument against why corporations should not have first amendment rights. It brings about the idea of what is the definition of a corporation and who decides what is a corporation? It also raises the concern about a large company represent all of the political interests involved with everyone working within the corporation, this article brings up some different arguments as to why corporations should not have first amendment rights.

This source can be put into conversation with my first source because the first source brings up the political implications of corporations being seen as people. This source gives context to the complications of how a corporation can actually make a political decision with all its persons represented in its decision. The first source also brought this up in their argument so that also could be used in conversation together.

My questions are still the same, this article just gives context to my pervious source.