Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
The Supreme Court case of Citizens United vs. FEC tested the constitutionality of important elements of federal campaign finance legislation. The Court’s ruling significantly altered the government’s ability to regulate federal political campaign funding and set restrictions for future campaign financing reform efforts.
January 21, 2010
Conner Bryan, Leamon Jourdan, Morgan Green
Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.
In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.
The Supreme Court in McConell vs. FEC had upheld the constitutionality of section 203 of BCRA
No, the Supreme Court overruled its prior ruling in McConell vs. FEC
No, the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie are constitutional
Yes, it can still be regulated if it contains no biased plea for or against candidates
Yes, the film is subject to regulation under BCRA
Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional?
Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"?
If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA?
Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?
(CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION)
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 10 January 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205>
(CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION)
Among many circles who believed that corporations already had too much power in politics, there was outrage. Corporations, on the other hand, rejoiced at their newly reinforced ability to contribute to political campaigns.
The decision in McConell vs. FEC from 7 years ago was overturned.
(CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION)
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor.
In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case.
(CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION)
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2002) regulates the financing of political campaigns.
McConell vs. FEC (2003) upheld most of the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
(CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION)
Citizens United vs. FEC was a landmark Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the first amendment banned the government from limiting independent political expenses by corporations and unions. The nonprofit group, Citizens United, wanted to air a film critical of Senator Hillary Clinton and to promote the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that certain parts of BCRA violated the first amendment
(CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION)