Omar Bennett
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that has had a significant impact on campaign finance laws and the transparency of election spending. The case centres around the constitutionality of restrictions on political spending by corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations. Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, challenged the Federal Election Commission's interpretation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act or BCRA. The Supreme Court's ruling in favour of Citizens United sparked controversy, with the majority holding that the prohibition of independent expenditures by these entities violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This decision has been criticized for granting disproportionate political power to large corporations and contributing to a lack of transparency in political spending, with a significant increase in dark money expenditures in subsequent elections.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Case name | Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission |
| Landmark decision | Yes |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Year of decision | 2010 |
| Area of law | Campaign finance laws |
| Clause used | First Amendment |
| Clause interpretation | Free Speech Clause |
| Clause interpretation 2 | Free Press Clause |
| Clause interpretation 3 | Protection of speech regardless of speaker's corporate identity |
| Clause interpretation 4 | Protection of independent communications |
| Clause interpretation 5 | Protection of associations of individuals |
| Clause interpretation 6 | No prohibition of speech based on identity of speaker |
| Decision | In favor of Citizens United |
| Decision impact | Increased corporate influence in politics |
| Decision impact 2 | Erosion of transparency in election spending |
| Decision impact 3 | Rise of "super PACs" |
| Public opinion | Overwhelming disapproval |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The First Amendment and free speech
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment protects several freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion, the press, and the right to assemble and petition the government.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that no branch or section of the federal, state, or local governments can infringe upon American speech. The First Amendment also protects the free expression of faith for all Americans. James Madison, the lead author of the First Amendment, extensively defended the freedom of religion, which had become a pivotal tenet of the American Revolution.
The First Amendment protects more recent and advanced forms of art and communication, including radio, film, television, video games, and the Internet. However, certain forms of expression, such as commercial advertising, defamation, obscenity, and interpersonal threats, have little to no protection under the First Amendment.
In the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the First Amendment was cited in relation to free speech and political campaigns. Citizens United, a nonprofit membership corporation, challenged the constitutionality of the statutory provisions governing disclaimers on and disclosure and funding of certain "electioneering communications". They argued that advertisements for a film they produced about Senator Hillary Clinton were political advertising and should be exempt from corporate funding restrictions. The District Court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that limiting independent expenditures on political campaigns by groups such as corporations or unions violates the First Amendment because such limitations constitute a prior restraint on speech.
Crafting Mixed-Member Proportional Representation for Your Constitution
You may want to see also
Corporate personhood
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case of 2010 is a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court concerning campaign finance laws. The Court ruled that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling has been criticised for promoting corporate personhood and granting large corporations disproportionate political power.
The case centred on Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organisation, and its attempts to promote its film "Hillary: The Movie", which was critical of Hillary Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign. Citizens United sought to air television advertisements for the film and make it available through various means, including in theatres and on DVD. However, the FEC found that these plans violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which prohibited "electioneering communications" by corporations and unions within specific time frames before an election.
The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC interpreted the First Amendment as providing corporations with the same speech rights as natural persons. This interpretation has been controversial, with critics arguing that corporations are not members of society in the same way that individuals are and that they cannot vote or run for office. Despite these concerns, the ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising as long as they do not coordinate with a campaign or candidate.
The Citizens United ruling has had significant implications for campaign finance, with a notable increase in spending from outside groups, particularly "super PACs". These super PACs can accept unlimited contributions from both individual donors and corporations and spend money on advertisements and communications promoting or attacking specific candidates. However, they are required to disclose their donors, although this disclosure can be obscured through "dark money" groups, making the original source of donations unclear.
The decision in Citizens United v. FEC has been highly controversial, with many Americans expressing disapproval and calling for its overturn. The ruling has been criticised for prioritising corporate rights over democratic principles and for increasing the influence of wealthy donors in politics. To address these concerns, policymakers have proposed various reforms, including stronger disclosure laws, stricter rules for super PACs, and alternative means for candidates to fund their campaigns.
Challenging the Constitution: Objecting to Ratification
You may want to see also
Political advertising
The case of Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court that significantly altered the landscape of political advertising in the United States. The case centred around the constitutional rights of free speech and their application to corporate entities and their spending on political campaigns.
Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organisation, challenged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over restrictions on their ability to promote and air a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, titled "Hillary: The Movie". Citizens United argued that these restrictions on their political speech were a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court, in a narrow majority decision, ruled in favour of Citizens United, striking down century-old campaign finance restrictions. The Court held that limiting independent expenditures by corporations and other outside groups was equivalent to limiting their speech, thus infringing on their First Amendment rights. This ruling built upon the precedent set by Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, which established that campaign spending was a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.
The Citizens United decision had far-reaching implications for political advertising. It allowed unlimited election spending by corporations and labour unions, setting a precedent for subsequent cases that further relaxed campaign finance regulations. This led to a significant increase in outside spending on elections, with wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups exerting an amplified influence on political campaigns.
The decision was highly controversial, sparking intense public debate. Supporters of the decision celebrated it as a victory for free speech and political participation, while critics argued that it granted special interests and lobbyists excessive power in the political arena. The ruling also had consequences for transparency in election spending, with a rise in ""dark money" expenditures that are challenging to track, further complicating the landscape of political advertising in the United States.
Founding Fathers' Vision: Preventing Tyranny in America
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Campaign finance laws
In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the US Supreme Court ruled that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling sparked significant controversy, with some praising it as a victory for free speech and others criticising it for granting disproportionate power to large corporations.
Citizens United, a nonprofit membership corporation, challenged the constitutionality of certain "electioneering communication" regulations. These regulations prohibited corporations and unions from funding broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Citizens United wanted to promote its film "Hillary: The Movie", which was critical of Hillary Clinton, during the 2008 political primary season. The FEC found that this violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which defined "electioneering communication" and prohibited corporate and union expenditures.
The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the speech rights of corporations, allowing them to spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising as long as they do not coordinate with a campaign or candidate. The Court interpreted the First Amendment to provide corporations with the same speech rights as individuals, arguing that the government should not determine whether large expenditures distort an audience's perception. This ruling also extended First Amendment protection to associations of individuals, not just individual speakers.
The Citizens United ruling had significant implications for campaign finance laws. It contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups, known as "super PACs", which can accept unlimited contributions and spend freely on ads promoting or attacking specific candidates. These super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but the original source of donations from "dark money groups" can remain unclear. The influence of wealthy donors and dark money in politics has sparked widespread disapproval, with many Americans across party lines supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
To address the impact of Citizens United, policymakers have proposed various reforms. These include stronger disclosure laws that require large campaign donors to be identified, stricter rules to prevent super PACs from coordinating with candidates, and alternative means for candidates to fund their campaigns without relying on big donors or super PACs. While Citizens United remains a controversial topic, it has significantly shaped the landscape of campaign finance in the United States.
God in the Constitution: A Mention or Omission?
You may want to see also
Disclosure requirements
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (or Citizens United v. FEC) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding campaign finance laws. The case was brought by Citizens United, a nonprofit membership corporation, which challenged the constitutionality of certain statutory provisions governing disclaimers, disclosure, and funding of "electioneering communications".
Citizens United produced a film titled "Hillary: The Movie" about Senator Hillary Clinton, and intended to broadcast television ads promoting the film. They argued that since the ads were not subject to the EC corporate funding restriction, it was unconstitutional to require the disclosure of the donors who paid for the advertisements. Citizens United also sought to make the film available through cable video-on-demand systems within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections, but feared that the film and ads would be covered by the ban on corporate-funded electioneering communications, thus subjecting them to civil and criminal penalties.
The District Court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the suit had little chance of success as the film was interpreted as an appeal to vote against Hillary Clinton, making it an item of express advocacy not entitled to exemption from the ban on corporate funding. The court also held that the disclosure requirements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) were constitutional, and that Sections 201 and 311 of the BCRA, which require the disclosure of information on the funders of such speech, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and the movie itself.
The Supreme Court's final ruling in 2010 was that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This decision sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that it granted disproportionate political power to large corporations.
In summary, the disclosure requirements were a key aspect of the Citizens United v. FEC case, with Citizens United challenging the constitutionality of such requirements for their film and advertisements. The courts, including the Supreme Court, ultimately upheld the constitutionality of disclosure requirements, finding them valid as applied to Citizens United's film and ads.
Muslim Congresswomen: Upholding the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The case was about whether limiting independent expenditures on political campaigns by corporations, unions, or other entities violated the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, stating that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
The ruling sparked controversy, with some praising it as a victory for free speech and others criticizing it for granting disproportionate political power to large corporations.
The FEC dismissed Citizens United's initial complaint about the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" but later prohibited the broadcast of Citizens United's film "Hillary: The Movie", citing violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
The BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, prohibits "electioneering communications" by incorporated entities, including restrictions on broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate before an election.
