Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Citizens United vs. FEC

No description

Mariana Vernieri

on 11 April 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Citizens United vs. FEC

OF SPEECH WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? PRIOR RESTRAINT CORRUPTION This case begun with a movie... "Hillary - The Movie" Citizens United is a Non-Profit Organization, which produced the film
It was a 90 minutes production, clearly AGAINST Hillary Clinton
It was featured in 9 Movie Theaters and DirecTV on-demand, and advertised on TV and Cable during the 2008 campaign The Federal Election Commission sued Citizens United based on the “McCain-Feingold law” of 2002 which bans corporations and individuals from contributing big amounts of money to political campaigns. Citizens United appeals, and the case goes to The Supreme Court of the United States of America, because it deals with an interpretation of the
First Amendment The FEC won the case
because the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
ruled that the movie was
akin to a long campaign
ad, and therefore it
should be
regulated like one

Under the argument of "Freedom of Speech" they:

Overturned the Ban on companies or unions supporting or opposing candidates with the use of their funds
Overturned the McCain-Feingold ban on issue-oriented ads within 60 days of a General Election or 30 of a Primary Majority Vote: Minority Vote: In 2010, the Justices decided favorably
to CITIZENS UNITED. This decision of the Court was highly criticized WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? PRIOR RESTRAINT CORRUPTION Consequences
Repercussions: Super PAC Political Action Committee
Main purpose is to be in support of or against a particular candidate
Gain funds from individuals, corporations, associations, and unions
Major importance of a SUPER PAC is the unlimited amount of money and who can contribute Popular criticism Media & Communications Misinterpretations of the ruling by the media
The role of social media
What does this mean for major media outlets during crucial election coverage? Conclusion Our Group considers that the Supreme Court has decided incorrectly in the "Citizens United" case.
We think that this ruling leads to negative implications regarding corruption, equality and free speech.
If corporations abuse of the rights that this court decision gives them, true democracy is at risk.
For these reasons, we consider that the Court should overturn this ruling in the near future. What do YOU think?
Full transcript