Citizens United v Federal Election Commission

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
Locked
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/5

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Last updated 2:08 PM on 7/23/26
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai
Chat

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

6 Terms

1
New cards

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.

2
New cards

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

3
New cards

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.

4
New cards

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.

5
New cards

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.

6
New cards

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