Citizens United, public health, and democracy: The Supreme Court ruling, its implications, and proposed action

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The 2010 US Supreme Court Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 US 876 (2010) case concerned the plans of a nonprofit organization to distribute a film about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Court ruled that prohibiting corporate independent expenditures for advocacy advertising during election campaigns unconstitutionally inhibits free speech. Corporations can now make unlimited contributions to election advocacy advertising directly from the corporate treasury. Candidates who favor public health positions may be subjected to corporate opposition advertising. Citizen groups and legislators have proposed remedies to ameliorate the effects of the Court's ruling. The public health field needs to apply its expertise, in collaboration with others, to work to reduce the disproportionate influence of corporate political speech on health policy and democracy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1172-1179
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Public Health
Volume101
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2011

Fingerprint

Democracy
Public Health
Nonprofit Organizations
Motion Pictures
Health Expenditures
Health Policy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

@article{82b8fcc67d4b47cba14fe3a4a5198c10,
title = "Citizens United, public health, and democracy: The Supreme Court ruling, its implications, and proposed action",
abstract = "The 2010 US Supreme Court Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 US 876 (2010) case concerned the plans of a nonprofit organization to distribute a film about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Court ruled that prohibiting corporate independent expenditures for advocacy advertising during election campaigns unconstitutionally inhibits free speech. Corporations can now make unlimited contributions to election advocacy advertising directly from the corporate treasury. Candidates who favor public health positions may be subjected to corporate opposition advertising. Citizen groups and legislators have proposed remedies to ameliorate the effects of the Court's ruling. The public health field needs to apply its expertise, in collaboration with others, to work to reduce the disproportionate influence of corporate political speech on health policy and democracy.",
author = "Wiist, {William H}",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2105/AJPH.2010.300043",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "101",
pages = "1172--1179",
journal = "American Journal of Public Health",
issn = "0090-0036",
publisher = "American Public Health Association Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Citizens United, public health, and democracy

T2 - The Supreme Court ruling, its implications, and proposed action

AU - Wiist, William H

PY - 2011/7/1

Y1 - 2011/7/1

N2 - The 2010 US Supreme Court Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 US 876 (2010) case concerned the plans of a nonprofit organization to distribute a film about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Court ruled that prohibiting corporate independent expenditures for advocacy advertising during election campaigns unconstitutionally inhibits free speech. Corporations can now make unlimited contributions to election advocacy advertising directly from the corporate treasury. Candidates who favor public health positions may be subjected to corporate opposition advertising. Citizen groups and legislators have proposed remedies to ameliorate the effects of the Court's ruling. The public health field needs to apply its expertise, in collaboration with others, to work to reduce the disproportionate influence of corporate political speech on health policy and democracy.

AB - The 2010 US Supreme Court Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 130 US 876 (2010) case concerned the plans of a nonprofit organization to distribute a film about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Court ruled that prohibiting corporate independent expenditures for advocacy advertising during election campaigns unconstitutionally inhibits free speech. Corporations can now make unlimited contributions to election advocacy advertising directly from the corporate treasury. Candidates who favor public health positions may be subjected to corporate opposition advertising. Citizen groups and legislators have proposed remedies to ameliorate the effects of the Court's ruling. The public health field needs to apply its expertise, in collaboration with others, to work to reduce the disproportionate influence of corporate political speech on health policy and democracy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958808857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958808857&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300043

DO - 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300043

M3 - Article

C2 - 21421946

AN - SCOPUS:79958808857

VL - 101

SP - 1172

EP - 1179

JO - American Journal of Public Health

JF - American Journal of Public Health

SN - 0090-0036

IS - 7

ER -