Question

Read Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissenting opinion in the Citizens United case.

At bottom, the Court's opinion is . . . a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
–Justice Stevens
Dissenting Opinion
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission


What does Justice Stevens say about the Court’s ruling?

Corporate money will make elections more likely to reflect the public will.
Corporate money will have no influence on elections.
Corporate money has changed since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
Corporate money will make elections less likely to reflect the public will.

Answer 1

Corporate money will make elections less likely to reflect the public will.

Stevens calls the Court’s decision a “rejection of the common sense” that seeks to prevent corporations from undermining self-government and warns of the “distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering,” meaning corporate money harms democratic representation.