In 1978, in the First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti case, the Supreme Court said business corporations had a First Amendment right to spend corporate
funds to advertise for or against public issues in political campaigns. Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing that corporations, as mere business entities,
should be subject to any reasonable government regulation (especially in a political context). Rehnquist said: “A state grants to a business corporation the
blessings of potentially perpetual life and limited liability to enhance its efficiency as an economic entity. It might reasonably be concluded that those
properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere”.
In 2010, in Citizens United v. the FEC case, the Supreme Court, applying a compelling government interest, overturned a long standing prohibition on
corporation expenditures — using corporate funds to publicly advocate the election or defeat of named political candidates. The legal opinion left intact
disclosure requirements.
Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens case and why? What are the implications for political discourse in the U.S.? Use or
cite any resource you like answering the question.