Title: Consumer Sovereignty Trumps Popular Sovereignty: The Economic Explanation for Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett
Abstract: INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court’s unsettling jurisprudence on money in politics appeared to reach a logical endpoint in 2010 with Citizens United v. FEC. Over the preceding thirty-four years of campaign finance cases, a free-market theory of the Constitution had triumphed as the Court attributed to the Constitution the views that money is speech, campaign finance reform is censorship, equality and democratic integrity are unconstitutional rationales for limiting political spending, and democracy must remain a market for competing donations and expenditures. Given this trajectory, Citizens United’s definitive statement on corporate political power was predictable enough. The case became an instant classic, cementing the Court’s judgment that corporations are citizens within our democracy, and the First Amendment guarantees them the right to unlimited political spending. Outrage resounded within the populace, numerous proposals to amend the Constitution issued forth, and many states defied the ruling. By this point in
Publication Year: 2013
Publication Date: 2013-01-03
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot