Difficulty: Medium

Average Score: 67%

The excerpt below is from the majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).Political speech is "indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual."

Based on this excerpt, which part of the U.S. Constitution did the Court's majority use to support its opinion?

Rationale

The First Amendment.

The Court's majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) relied on the First Amendment to support its opinion that political speech, including that from corporations, is essential for democracy. This amendment protects freedom of speech against government restrictions, which the Court interpreted to include corporate speech in the context of political funding.

A (the Fifteenth Amendment) YOUR ANSWER

The Fifteenth Amendment focuses on preventing the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. While it is a crucial aspect of voting rights, it does not pertain to the issue of political speech or the regulation of corporate contributions to campaigns, making it irrelevant to the Court's reasoning in this case.

B (the Commerce Clause) YOUR ANSWER

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. While it plays a significant role in many legal contexts, it does not address issues of free speech or political expression. The Court's discussion in Citizens United revolves around the protection of speech rather than economic activities, rendering this choice incorrect.

C (the First Amendment) YOUR ANSWER

The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of speech, which was the cornerstone of the majority's opinion in Citizens United. The Court asserted that restrictions on corporate funding of political speech violate this constitutional right. This choice is indeed correct, as it directly aligns with the Court's emphasis on the importance of political speech in a democracy.

D (the Elections Clause) CORRECT

The Elections Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of elections. However, in Citizens United, the focus was not on the procedural aspects of elections but rather on the broader principle of free speech. Therefore, while relevant to election regulation, it does not support the majority's opinion regarding political speech.

Conclusion

In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the majority opinion firmly grounded its reasoning in the First Amendment's protection of free speech. This principle was pivotal in asserting that political expression, including that by corporations, is vital for democracy. The other choices, while significant in their respective areas, do not pertain to the Court's focus on the freedom of speech regarding political contributions.