1/5
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai | Chat |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
Context (Citizens United v FEC)
this is all about campaign finance laws and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Regarding this case, the act made it illegal for corporations/nonprofits to engage in electioneering communications for 60 days before an election or for 30 days before a primary. In 2008 the Democratic primary was between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. A conservative group called citizens United made a film called “Hillary, the movie” full of accusations. Before it was released, it was already within this forbidden period under the BCRA.
Constitutional principle / Citizens United Argument (Citizens United v FEC)
The mentioned portion of BCRA was a violation of the first amendment freedom of speech. Since the 1800s SCOTUS ruled corporations as associations of individuals, meaning that constitutional liberties extended to them
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Citizens United v FEC)
A provision that prohibited corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to fund "electioneering communications" (political advertisements) within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.
Federal Election Committee (Citizens United v FEC)
Argued that the BCRA was not a restriction or infringing upon the first amendment rights to free speech of Citizens United because the act still allowed corporations to have political engagement via a Political Action Committee (PAC). It was Citizens United’s fault that they didn’t follow the PAC guideline and subsequently ended in a case.
Decision (Citizens United v FEC)
[5-4] in favor of citizens United. The limitations on corporations political advertisements are not different from government censorship as the corporations have civil liberties as well.
Matters (Citizens United v FEC)
Question→ since money=speech in the political arena, is it fair for those with the most money to have the loudest voice?
To this question, the court ruled yes. Technically, as long as no direct communication to the candidate up to the day of the election