<Marketplace of Ideas> vs. <Corruption>: Rhetorical Examination of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Abstract

The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. The Court determines whether acts in society are Constitutional. Because of this responsibility, the Court itself is an institution that influences and is influenced by ideology and rhetoric. Because society’s ideology changes due to humans conversing with one another, so does the law. Given this context, America’s First Amendment provides an abundant body of artifacts where the law and rhetorical ideology overlap. One particular right granted in the First Amendment is the freedom to speak. This right granted by the Constitution is titled the free speech clause. This clause has been a subject of debate throughout American history. Furthermore, this right has been defined, re-defined, and shaped to fit certain particular interests in society. The Supreme Court last year made a recent landmark decision that concerns freedom of speech and campaign finance. This study will examine Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission in order to investigate the rhetorical strategies and ideological influences embedded within the decision. The methodological tool of McGee’s proposed ideograph will be used in order to answer the following research question: What role does ideology, concerning free speech, play in the Citizens United v. FEC? From the given analysis, two ideographs emerged, <Marketplace of ideas> and <Corruption>. These two ideographs provided the basis to articulate an ideological framework by which scholars can understand the Supreme Court and answer the following research question. Furthermore, the analysis of this decision assisted this study to explain possible implications and conclusions from the ruling in Citizens United.