When constructing the Constitution, the framers insisted on a government strong enough to deal with the nation's problems, but limited enough liberty so that there would always be a sense of self-government within states. . The First Amendment is an example of the Framers' intent. The First Amendment grants freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Among these, free speech was put to the test in the recent 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. As it pertains to this case, the First Amendment proclaims that the government is prohibited from regulating political spending by corporations, associations, and unions. Many consequences arise from this major decision but not all of them are negative. The issues surrounding running for office and financing an election appear to be controversial in the public eye. Despite the negative criticism that follows every major decision, the Supreme Court has issued the right call to action. There will always be different views on how elections should be financed, but the truth is that not everyone will be happy with the Supreme Court's decision. It is difficult to determine how far political funding and donations can go until democracy is forgotten. The First Amendment is perhaps the most controversial amendment to the Bill of Rights. The Framers wanted the Constitution to be more of a foundation and not a body of laws. As a result, the First Amendment is vague and does not limit the influence a company can exert over elections or campaigns. Companies, associations and unions can finance a primary without any restriction. This can be both positive and negative. On the one hand, a politician does not need to be...... middle of paper ......ted c. Elected Electoral Commission. In connection with this case, the First Amendment prohibits the administration from controlling political use by businesses, corporations, and unions. Many results arise from this important choice, but not all are negative. Issues include race for jobs and funding decision seems to be a controversial topic in the eyes of the general population. Regardless of the negative reactions to each critical choice, the Supreme Court made the right decision. There will constantly be different perspectives on how a campaign should be financed. The fact remains that not everyone will be satisfied with the Supreme Court's decision in this case. It is difficult to set a limit on the scale of political subsidies and donations as long as democracy is not neglected..