Citizens United v. FEC,
130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
Facts:
Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation developed and released a film entitled Hillary: The Movie in anticipation of the 2008 presidential elections. Hillary: The Movie was a 90-minute documentary detailing aspects of Senator Clinton’s political career and included interviews with political commentators and other individuals designed to generate a negative impression of Senator Clinton. The film was originally released in select theaters and through DVD sales, but eventually became available on video-on-demand. Citizens United paid $1.2 million to cable providers in order to make the movie available on-demand and, also, paid for television advertisements for the film. Citizens United, however, encountered several potential problems in its attempt to advertise. First, Section 441b of Title 2 of the United States Code disallows campaign contributions from national banks, corporations, and labor organizations. Second, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) amended Section 441b to also bar all “electioneering communication.†Such communications cannot be made during the thirty days immediately preceding a primary election or during the sixty-day period before a general election. In anticipation of potential problems stemming from the film’s release, Citizens United filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Federal Election Commission (“FECâ€) in December 2007.
Procedural Posture:
The District Court denied Citizens United’s request for a preliminary injunction and granted the FEC summary judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted cert.
Issue:
Whether the First Amendment applies to corporations such that corporations have a right to make corporate political expenditures.
Holding:
The Supreme Court found that given the first amendment rights, to which corporations are entitled, restrictions on corporate political expenditures are not constitutionally permissible. The result of this position was that the Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Section 203 of the BCRA, Section 441b’s restriction on the use of corporate expenditures for express advocacy, and the portion of McConnell v. FEC which found Section 203 of the BCRA constitutional. Moreover, Hillary: The Movie was no longer restricted by Section 441b.
Critical Analysis:
The Court explained that such speech is so significant to our society that allowing the government to place restrictions on certain communications runs afoul of our values. Chief Justice Roberts strongly disapproved of the government argument which he believed would “allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.†As a result, the Court stressed that the First Amendment has been read to include corporations and that this position has been expanded upon by case law. More specifically, the Court rejected the concept that corporations could be restricted in their ability to make political expenditures due to a fear of unfair advantage for those corporations in the market. In contrast, the dissent led by Justice Stevens (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor), argued that the Citizens United decision conflicts with a hundred years of law, not simply Austin, and that such a decision could have a dangerous impact on future elections.
130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
Facts:
Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation developed and released a film entitled Hillary: The Movie in anticipation of the 2008 presidential elections. Hillary: The Movie was a 90-minute documentary detailing aspects of Senator Clinton’s political career and included interviews with political commentators and other individuals designed to generate a negative impression of Senator Clinton. The film was originally released in select theaters and through DVD sales, but eventually became available on video-on-demand. Citizens United paid $1.2 million to cable providers in order to make the movie available on-demand and, also, paid for television advertisements for the film. Citizens United, however, encountered several potential problems in its attempt to advertise. First, Section 441b of Title 2 of the United States Code disallows campaign contributions from national banks, corporations, and labor organizations. Second, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) amended Section 441b to also bar all “electioneering communication.†Such communications cannot be made during the thirty days immediately preceding a primary election or during the sixty-day period before a general election. In anticipation of potential problems stemming from the film’s release, Citizens United filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Federal Election Commission (“FECâ€) in December 2007.
Procedural Posture:
The District Court denied Citizens United’s request for a preliminary injunction and granted the FEC summary judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted cert.
Issue:
Whether the First Amendment applies to corporations such that corporations have a right to make corporate political expenditures.
Holding:
The Supreme Court found that given the first amendment rights, to which corporations are entitled, restrictions on corporate political expenditures are not constitutionally permissible. The result of this position was that the Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Section 203 of the BCRA, Section 441b’s restriction on the use of corporate expenditures for express advocacy, and the portion of McConnell v. FEC which found Section 203 of the BCRA constitutional. Moreover, Hillary: The Movie was no longer restricted by Section 441b.
Critical Analysis:
The Court explained that such speech is so significant to our society that allowing the government to place restrictions on certain communications runs afoul of our values. Chief Justice Roberts strongly disapproved of the government argument which he believed would “allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.†As a result, the Court stressed that the First Amendment has been read to include corporations and that this position has been expanded upon by case law. More specifically, the Court rejected the concept that corporations could be restricted in their ability to make political expenditures due to a fear of unfair advantage for those corporations in the market. In contrast, the dissent led by Justice Stevens (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor), argued that the Citizens United decision conflicts with a hundred years of law, not simply Austin, and that such a decision could have a dangerous impact on future elections.