McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) Summaries

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Selective Incorporation:
- Under the Fourteenth Amendment, states cannot deny citizens life, liberty, or property without due process. The Supreme Court uses "selective incorporation" to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Militia:
- Historically, local groups called militias provided military force. The Second Amendment references the right to bear arms in the context of militias, leading to debate over whether it protects an individual right or only the right within militias.

In 2010, Otis McDonald, a retired Chicago resident, wanted to legally purchase a handgun for home defense due to increased gang activity and drug dealers in his neighborhood.
He legally owned shotguns but felt a handgun would provide better protection after five break-in attempts on his property.
A city-wide handgun ban enacted in 1982 prevented him from purchasing one.
McDonald and three other Chicago residents sued the city, arguing the ban limited their Second Amendment rights.
The case progressed through lower courts and was eventually heard by the Supreme Court in 2010.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that states could not impede citizens' right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
The ruling was based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures that the Constitution applies to state inhabitants.
Chicago could not restrict its citizens' rights to keep and bear arms by denying them the right to legally purchase a handgun for "lawful purposes."

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008):
- A 5-4 decision affirming the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms.
- The Court declared the District of Columbia's ban on handguns unconstitutional.

Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016):
- Ruled that bearable arms not in use at the time of the Second Amendment's drafting, such as stun guns, are still covered under the Second Amendment.
- Broadened the types of weapons considered lawful under the Second Amendment to those without historical or military purposes.

Both pro-gun and anti-gun advocates claimed victory in McDonald v. Chicago.
Pro-gun groups believed the decision set a precedent for overturning state laws restricting handgun ownership.
Anti-gun groups argued the narrow margin and strong dissent set the stage for future court battles that could restrict private gun ownership.
The case opens the question of how much states can restrict the keeping and bearing of arms within their jurisdiction.

Soft Money:
- Political donations given to a party, not a specific candidate; not heavily regulated.
Hard Money:
- Political donations given to a candidate or PAC; subject to some regulations.
Disclosure:
- Informing the public about who is behind political advertisements or spending.

In 2008, Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, created a film called "Hillary: The Movie," which negatively portrayed then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
A lower court ruled the film violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's (BCRA) prohibition on "electioneering communication" by a corporation or labor union immediately before an election.
The Supreme Court considered whether restrictions on political spending violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Court ruled that the First Amendment protects political spending by advocacy groups and PACs and that the BCRA's restrictions on such spending were unconstitutional.
In a separate 8-1 vote, the Court upheld the BCRA's disclosure requirements and the prohibition on corporations and unions contributing money directly to political candidates.

The decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) remains extremely controversial and highlighted the tension between concerns about wealthy individuals controlling elections and the protection of individual liberties, especially freedom of speech.
Opponents of the ruling use mantras such as "Corporations aren't people" and "Money isn't speech."
Defenders of the ruling view it as crucial protection for their political advertising strategies.
Numerous states had to change their campaign finance laws as a result of the ruling.
There has been a rise in the power of "super-PACs," which can engage in unlimited political spending on behalf of candidates but cannot contribute directly to their campaigns.