Citizens United is an example of a case where the Supreme Court overruled a law created by democratically elected representatives in the name of democratic process. In this chapter the important First Amendment election finance case, Citizens United, is analyzed and critiqued through a survey of recent legal literature on the decision. In particular, the evaluations of Epstein, Dworkin and Robert C. Post are highlighted. Once a set of critiques are outlined, the issues of Citizens United are then analyzed under a democratic experimentalism framework. What is concluded is that the fact-based and experimental outlook of democratic experimentalism would help the Court avoid the dogmatic and authoritarian stance that the Citizens United opinion unfortunately exemplifies.
Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.