Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
{{TOC|right}} | {{TOC|right}} | ||
'''Citizens United v. Federal | '''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission''' is a controversial 2010 [[Supreme Court of the United States]] decision<ref>(130 S. Ct. 876)</ref> that [[First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]] rights applied to [[corporation]]s as well as biological persons, reversing laws that restricted direct corporate-paid advertising on behalf of, or against, candidates. Corporations are still not allowed to make direct contributions to campaighs.. It is a victory for the [[corporate rights movement]], a broader initiative to extend the originally narrow definition of a corporation as a legal person, to an entity that has the rights of biological people. | ||
The Court decided a matter that began with the request for injunctive relief by [[Citizens United]], a [[501(c)(4)]] nonprofit corporation, against the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002]] (BCRA or McCain-Feingold), as administered by the [[Federal | The Court decided a matter that began with the request for injunctive relief by [[Citizens United]], a [[501(c)(4)]] nonprofit corporation, against the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002]] (BCRA or McCain-Feingold), as administered by the [[Federal Election Commission]], which prohibits corporations and unions from using their [[general treasury fund]]s to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “[[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002#electioneering communication|electioneering communication]]” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate <ref>2 U. S. C. §441</ref>. | ||
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, | In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced a documentary, ''Hillary'', critical of then-Senator [[Hillary Clinton]], a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make ''Hillary'' available on cable television the through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that | ||
*(1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary; | *(1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary; | ||
*(2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements,BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads. | *(2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to ''Hillary'' and the ads. | ||
The [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia]] denied Citizens United a preliminary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission (FEC) summary judgment. | |||
==Parties to the Case== | ==Parties to the Case== | ||
Citizens United's lead attorney was [[Theodore Olson]]. [[Elena Kagan]] argued the government side. | Citizens United's lead attorney was [[Theodore Olson]]. [[Elena Kagan]] argued the government side. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 27: | ||
==Developments== | ==Developments== | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] | ||
Latest revision as of 07:00, 29 July 2024
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a controversial 2010 Supreme Court of the United States decision[1] that First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution rights applied to corporations as well as biological persons, reversing laws that restricted direct corporate-paid advertising on behalf of, or against, candidates. Corporations are still not allowed to make direct contributions to campaighs.. It is a victory for the corporate rights movement, a broader initiative to extend the originally narrow definition of a corporation as a legal person, to an entity that has the rights of biological people.
The Court decided a matter that began with the request for injunctive relief by Citizens United, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA or McCain-Feingold), as administered by the Federal Election Commission, which prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate [2].
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced a documentary, Hillary, critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television the through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that
- (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary;
- (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Citizens United a preliminary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission (FEC) summary judgment.
Parties to the Case
Citizens United's lead attorney was Theodore Olson. Elena Kagan argued the government side.
Case law
- McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) [3] upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge
- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) [4] held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
The decisions
Decided by a 5-4 vote, the majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.