Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
3
FONTS
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Outcome
Citizens United
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. The court held that the "government may not suppress political speech on the basics of the speakers identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations".
Citizens United argued that: 1) section 203 violated the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related to advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/10722
Background Information
In the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, produced a 90-minute documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie. The movie criticized Hillary Clinton and at the time she was the top contended in the Presidential Democratic primary. Section 203 of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform act prohibits corporations from using their general treasury funds to fund "electing communications" in the 30 days before a primarily and the 60 days before a general election. Citizens United say it is not classified as an electioneering communication.
Lasting Effects
Federal Election Commission
It is still illegal for companies and labor unions to give money directly to candidates for federal office.
Claims that it is "electioneering communication". They also say it is not unconstitutional. It is an attept to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unit for office, therefore Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied.
http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/10722
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205