Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Citizens United vs.

FEC

Andrew Harper, Max Sybert, Jacob Ahern,

Andy Torres-Reyes,

Kaitlyn Cherniss,

Yuzu Do

Hillary: The Movie

"An investigation into how the Clinton's have amassed millions in personal wealth through foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, a supposed charity, in exchange for political favors while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State." -IMDB

The Movie

The Cost

$1.2 million

The

Failure

Obscene Handling

Obscene

Handling

The Notification

-Future "tampering" from FEC

-Citizens United v. FEC in DC's US District Court

-Case was filed before the release of the film

Company

Reaction

The Problem

Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)

  • Section 203: prohibits corporations and labor unions from using treasury funds to make independent expenditures for "electioneering communication"

  • Section 201: disclaimer provision
  • Example: "____ is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

  • Section 311: disclosure statements listing names of donors or groups that funded $10,000 or more to "electioneering communication"

  • What is"electioneering communication"?

The

Fight

The Fight

Section 203

Section 201

and 311

Unconstitutional

Violated Freedom of Speech

  • Injunction was denied by District Court
  • Appealed to the Supreme Court

What Was at Stake?

-Freedom of Speech

-Campaign Financing

-Corporations as Individuals

The

Brief

The Precedent

1.

First Amendment

2.

Political Speech

The Case

3.

BCRA

Application

-Austin vs Michigan and part of McConnell v FEC decisions (political speech could be forbidden according to the identity of the corporation) were over-ruled

-No limitation on funding by independent expenditures under 1st amendment

Application

Final Decision

Vote of 5-4 in favor of Citizens United

Majority held that the BCRA could not limit free speech but could require disclosure.`

Result

Dissenting vs Concurring`

Opinions

It's complicated.

The Aftermath

The

Aftermath

Unequal Campaign Contributions

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United essentially allowing corporations to fund campaigns, negating laws set forth by BCRA.

Significance

Social Backlash

Many citizens felt that big corporations gained a campaigning advantage and most ordinary citizens lost their voice behind powerful corporations.

Social

Results

Legislative Reform

Political

Influence

Legislatively, almost half the states would have to revise their campaign finance laws as well as 16 states going as far as to propose state constitutional amendments to reverse the decision, many of which are non-binding. Additionally, many notable politicians, such as Barack Obama and John McCain opposed the ruling saying it put the power in the hands of corporations.

Was The Supreme Court Right?

The

Finale

Q1

Why do you think the Supreme Court’s decision fell mostly among party lines (with those voting in favor of Citizens United being predominantly conservative, while those dissenting from the court’s opinion being predominantly liberal)?

Why do you think that the requirement to disclose the source of federal campaign funds (311) was the most highly debated topic in this court case, as opposed to some of the other issues Citizens United brought against the FEC?

Q2

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi