BLW: Case CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief of CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
...

Description

CASE #2 CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Supreme Court of the United States, 2010 FACTS: In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. However, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media as well as “electioneering communication,” in connection with certain qualified federal elections. An electioneering communication is defined as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. In December 2007, Citizens United sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the FEC. ISSUE: Do the disclosure and disclaimer requirements of the BCRA unconstitutionally limit the First Amendment right of free speech? HOLDING: Yes REASONING: Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.” McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). CONCLUSION: The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations. The judgment of the District Court is reversed with respect to the constitutionality of 2 U. S. C. §441b’s restrictions on corporate independent expenditures. The judgment is affirmed with respect to BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion....