background

• In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This prevented corporations or labor unions from using their general treasuries to fund “electioneering communications” (radio, TV broadcasts, etc) for a candidate within a set amount of time before an election.

• In 2008, Citizens United wanted a court order against the Federal Election Commission to prevent the application of the BCRA to its documentary about Hillary Clinton, who was a Democratic nomination for president.

• Citizens United thought that the BCRA violated the First Amendment.

jurisdictions

original jurisdiction

• This case was first heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

• The District Court ruled against Citizens United, citing an earlier Supreme Court Case, McConnell vs. FEC. This was an earlier challenge to finance regulations of campaign brought by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell. The ruling said that the BCRA was constitutional.

appellate jurisdiction

• After the district court ruled against Citizens United on all counts, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari and agreed to hear the case.

supreme court ruling

• Holding: 5-4 for Citizens United.

• Majority opinion: under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.

• This overturned  Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of the McConnell case. Austin ruled that a Michigan state law prohibiting corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates was constitutional.

• Majority Opinion Quotes:

  • “In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. It has been noted that “Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles,” We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

  • “The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer.”

• Dissent:

  • “[the court’s ruling is] a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government.”

  • “All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.”

• This decision remains highly controversial. Some people believe that it is important for First Amendment rights, while others think it’s giving big corporations too much power in elections.

companion case

• McConnell v. FEC

• This case was also about the use of money in electioneering. This was a 5-4 decision for the FEC. It banned the use of “soft” money by national party committees and by state and local parties affecting federal elections.

  • “Soft” money is contributions made outside the limits of federal law. It is unregulated.