INTRODUCTION
The Citizens United Supreme Court case is a notable legal battle in the US, fought against the Federal Election Commission. This case centers on investors and corporations wishing to contribute their funds to elections for social service purposes. This file provides a detailed explanation of the case's outcome, highlighting the key points involved. It will also discuss both the advantages and disadvantages associated with the case.
MAIN BODY
The case is all about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Here, in this case the controversial decision was declared where power to invest the fund was given to corporation within the election. Previously, there was the rule that any of the person is not allow to do fuding within the election and if in case they are willing to do so then proper discloser must be done for the purpose of maintaining the records (Conklin and Nadelson, 2018). But, the decision which was declared by the supreme court on 21st January, 2020 the whole decision was changed where power has been given to corporation and outsider groups that they can invest unlimited amount of money within the campaign. After the decision any of the person can invest any of the amount within the court.
The declared decision based on 5-4 majority of vote which was decided by the panel within the Supreme Court (Citizens United Explained, 2019). Now, in any of the situation any of the outside group doesn't have to disclose that what is the total sum which they are going to invest within the election as it will be their choice to do so. The points which was explained in this respective case was just simple as more percentage of participants will be able to take part within the election which will allow to make election more interesting.
Before, each and every information were required to be disclosed that who and which corporation has invested what amount of money which used to create problem once the election was ended. But, the decision which has been taken will not allow to disclose the information due to which chances of obtaining the better result even once the election gets over. Although, it gets easy to understand for the investor that how work is needed to be performed but chances of introduction of black money will automatically increase due to the effect of this respective decision.
There are number of countries who just think that any of the person or corporation should not interfere within their political decision and any of the internal affair. But, in present scenario, it was found that the decision was taken will allow the other person to show their involvement within the business organisation (Hitt and Searles, 2018). So, it will be important to understand that other organisation from different part of world will become activity within the political decision of US. According to PACs and super PACs any on the individual was only allowed to invest up to $5000 in a year for a candidate within the election which has been changed to unlimited amount of money from the day when decision has been reversed by the supreme court.
This was the case which got limelight from the movie: Hillary where it was mainly focused that disclosing the amount and support within the election is unethical and even it is not allowed as well. In any of the situation people should not be forced that to whom they are going to support because that will reduce the percentage of their interest. The movie showed some of this points which were highly criticise by number of people. Once, this decision will be implement it will allow multiple number of organisation to invest their capital within election and they will allow the election to become more interesting.
In this case, the decision was declared in McConnell v. Federal Election had been also overruled. Before the implementation of this respective law, it was decided that even corporation could be banned to support any of the political party. It was just because if once their invested political party wins the election then they would try to work for their benefit. But, judges decided that it is their choice that whether they are willing to invest for any of the political party or not. No one has the right to raise the question for any of the corporation that whom they are supporting. This is one of the trend which will allow to grow the procedure of election where more number of people will try to take part (Gibson and Nelson, 2016). Judges also made the points that it is the willingness of the corporation and even it will be their expenditure so no one has the right to make question that company cannot invest within the election.
There are number of points which can be raised with this respective decision and the first one is that chances of introduction of black money will increase automatically. There will be high probability that corruption will increase automatically. It is because number of organisation as well as people will get the opportunity to use their secondary source of money to invest. In simple words, in some of the circumstances people will have to suffer from this respective problem. Another points will be their and that is that people as well as multinational corporation will be able to show their involvement within the political decision which were rarely found with the premisses of United States.
Although, decision was altered by looking at the situation of the case which was quite correct but the main thing which was needed to be understand that in any of the situation supreme should have not allowed any of the outsiders to invest their fund within the election. It is because whenever any of the outsider tries to show their involvement within the case then it create major issues within the political parties because politically stability will never occur within the nation. Even nowadays we can show more and more involvement within the election jut because huge amount of money is being used in it which can be easily determined with the help of past result (Bailard, 2016). But, if less amount of money will be spend within the election then there will be high probability that same amount of found that be further used in another source which will allow to obtain better results in future period. Also, there are some of the points which says that decision which has been altered is in favourable and still there are some of the points which will not allow to resolved the argue that what are requirement to involve any of the outsiders within the election process of United States.
CONCLUSION
From the above file, it can be concluded that any decision declared within the premises of a court can be reversed, but valid points and arguments must be presented to make this possible. Although higher courts sometimes reverse decisions, there is no guarantee that such reversals will always have a positive outcome, as issues may arise over time. Additionally, if there is no disclosure of funds, the risk of involving black money increases. For further assistance with understanding these legal concepts, students can seek assignment help UK. Using a grammar checker can also help ensure the clarity and accuracy of legal writing.
Also Read- Marketing Planning
UPTO56%
Avail The Benefit Today!
To View this & another 50000+ free
Update your Number