Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
{{TOC|right}} | {{TOC|right}} | ||
'''Citizens United v. Federal Elections 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 corporate contributions to political campaigns. 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. | '''Citizens United v. Federal Elections 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 corporate contributions to political campaigns. 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. | ||
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter ''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 | 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 Elections Commission]], which prohibits corporations and unions from using their [[general treasury fund]]s to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate <ref>2 U. S. C. §441</ref>. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election,<ref> 2 USC 434(f)(3)(A)</ref>, and that is “publicly distributed,” <ref>11 CFR §100.29(a)(2)</ref>,which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President . . . means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days,” <ref>11 CFR §100.29(b)(3)(ii)</ref>. Corporations and unions may establish a [[political action committee]] (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes. <ref>2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2)</ref> | ||
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter ''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 District Court denied Citizens United a preliminary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission(FEC) summary judgment. | The District Court denied Citizens United a preliminary injunction and granted appellee Federal Election Commission (FEC) summary judgment. | ||
==The | ==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) <ref>540 U. S. 93, 203–209</ref> upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge | |||
*'' [[Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce]]'' (1990) <ref> 494 U.S. 652</ref> 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]]. | 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]]. | Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] dissented, joined by Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], [[Stephen Breyer]], and [[Sonia Sotomayor]]. | ||
==Impacts== | ==Impacts== | ||
===Legal=== | ===Legal=== | ||
Revision as of 17:35, 10 October 2010
Citizens United v. Federal Elections 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 corporate contributions to political campaigns. 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 Elections 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]. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election,[3], and that is “publicly distributed,” [4],which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President . . . means” that the communication “[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election . . . is being held within 30 days,” [5]. Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes. [6]
In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter 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 District Court 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) [7] upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge
- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) [8] 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.