Citizens United v. FEC
| Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 24, 2009 Reargued September 9, 2009 Decided January 21, 2010 |
|
| Full case name | Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission |
| Docket nos. | 08-205 |
| Citations | 558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S.Ct. 876
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Reargument | Reargument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Prior history | denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008). |
| Holding | |
| The Freedom of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. And the provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV) |
| Concurrence | Roberts, joined by Alito |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part) |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act | |
|
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
|
|
| McConnell v. FEC (in part) | |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010) is a U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on 21 January 2010 that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.
In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. This would violate a federal statute prohibiting certain electioneering communications near an election. The court found the provisions of the law that prohibited corporations and unions from making such electioneering communications to conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
However, the court upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.
In the case, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA" (pronounced "bik-ruh"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications". The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.
...
Wikipedia