Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

'Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n', 558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010) is a Supreme Court split (5-4) decision issued in 2010 that held corporate political speech is protected under the First Amendment. In doing so it struck down sections of the 2002 McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance law, The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, specifically the part prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for "electioneering communication," or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. It did, however, uphold the sections of the law requiring disclosure and disclaimers.

The Parties
Citizens United is "a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of Virginia and tax-exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code." It is led by David Bossie, who has served as president since 2000.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the agency created by Congress in 1975 to "administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections."

The Law
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (H.R.2356), otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bills, originated in 2001 with bills sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), respectively. The purpose of the act was to ban "soft money" from being contributed to candidates and political parties. It also prohibited the airing of "non-partisan" issue ads funded by soft money in days leading up to elections, among other things. President George W. Bush signed the act into law on March 27, 2002.

Section 201 of BCRA contains a donor disclosure provision for electioneering communications. Persons who disburse an aggregate of $10,000 or more a year for the production and airing of electioneering communications are required to file a statement with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The statement must include the names and addresses of persons who have contributed in excess of $1,000 to accounts funding the communication.

Section 203 of BCRA regulates the purchase of “electioneering communications.” Generally, these are “broadcast, cable, or satellite” communications made within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. Section 203 restricts corporations and labor unions from funding electioneering communications from their general funds except under certain specific circumstances, e.g., get-out-the-vote campaigns. Permissible “electioneering communications” are subject to BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements under sections 201 and 311.

The Case
Citizens United filed for an injunction against the FEC to prevent it from enforcing the BCRA with respect to its film "Hillary: The Movie", which was critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. It wanted to air the film and advertisements for the film around the time of the 2008 presidential primary. The District Court denied the injunction. The district court held that Section 203 was constitutional relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in McConnell v. FEC. It also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, because it attempted to inform voters that Senator Hillary Clinton was unfit for office. It also held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case

The Supreme Court overruled two of its prior decisions- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC holding that the First Amendment bars the limitation of corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections. But the Court upheld the BCRA's disclosure requirements and the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Related SourceWatch Articles

 * Citizens United
 * Federal Election Commission
 * Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

External Articles

 * Garrett Epps, Constitutional Myth #5: Corporations Have the Same Free-Speech Rights as Individuals, The Atlantic, June 23, 2011.

Online Resources

 * SCOTUS Blog - Sponsored by Bloomberg Law Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
 * Oyez - U.S Supreme Court Media, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 * Commoncause.org, Frequently Asked Questions, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission