On the Citizens United association, the court ruled against the disparity of treatment desired for fourth estate companies. He argued that the case did not fit the allocation provided in the First Amendments. Additionally, the court rejected the companies' view that the Amendment originally sanctioned the suppression of the companies' political statements. Additionally, the court realized that Austin was obstructing “open market” facts protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, the government's opinion did not influence the court on two looming issues. Issues include the fight against corruption and shareholder protection. On the issue of combating corruption, the court rejected the government's view that independent corporate spending led to either corruption or cases of embezzlement. The court gave three reasons to justify its judgment. First, Buckley's argument that the government should prevent corporate corruption did not fit the case. This is because corrupt quid pro quo interests have limited government precautions. Second, government interest as defined by the Constitution restricts the candidate's direct associations on spending, but not independent business spending. Third, the poverty of spending elected officials does not deem them corrupt. Finally, twenty-six states in the United States do not restrict spending by independent businesses, and the government has failed to prove that the lack of restrictions in these states led to corruption. On the other question of shareholder protection, the court refuted the government's proposal which insisted on the protection of shareholders against the financing of political speech. Shareholder protection has been unnecessarily avoided ... middle of paper ... government should not control independent spending by various groups. Therefore, the decision upheld the original ban on companies using Treasury funds for outright advocacy purposes. An important aspect of the decision revolves around creating a state of transparency on how companies could spend their finances for political prospects. Public opinion shows that the BCRA §203 restriction on independent expenditures made by businesses violated First Amendment propositions on the issue of free speech. Additionally, controversy surfaced that the First Amendment did not distinguish between other corporations and the Fourth Estate. It is clear that the Amendment protects individualist associations and their speakers. In conclusion, the affair had much more significant consequences than those initially anticipated by both parties..