Citizens United v. FEC

Citizens United v. FEC is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that has had significant implications for campaign finance in the United States, involving Federal Election Commission regulations and the First Amendment rights of corporations like Citizens United, a non-profit organization founded by David Bossie, a former Republican Party staffer, and Floyd Brown, a political consultant who worked on the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidential campaigns. The case centered on the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which was amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, signed into law by President George W. Bush, and the McCain-Feingold Act, sponsored by John McCain and Russ Feingold. The Supreme Court's decision in this case has been compared to other notable First Amendment cases, such as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and Texas v. Johnson, which were decided by Justices like William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall.

Background

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency responsible for enforcing federal campaign finance laws, including the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which was enacted during the Nixon administration. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, was a major overhaul of campaign finance laws, sponsored by John McCain and Russ Feingold, and signed into law by President George W. Bush. The law prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to finance electioneering communications, which are defined as broadcast ads that mention a candidate within a certain time period before an election. Citizens United, a non-profit organization founded by David Bossie and Floyd Brown, produced a documentary called Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clinton, a Democratic Party presidential candidate in the 2008 United States presidential election. The film was financed by corporate donations, which raised concerns about the potential for corporate influence in politics, an issue that has been debated by scholars like Lawrence Lessig and Jonathan Turley.

The Case

The case began when Citizens United sought to broadcast Hillary: The Movie on cable television via video-on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primary elections. However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) prohibited the broadcast, citing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on electioneering communications funded by corporations. Citizens United challenged the FEC's decision in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the law violated its First Amendment rights, a claim that has been supported by advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The district court ruled in favor of the FEC, and Citizens United appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld the lower court's decision, citing precedents like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC, which were decided by Justices like William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia.

Supreme Court Decision

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 24, 2009, and again on September 9, 2009, after ordering reargument to consider the broader question of whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on corporate expenditures was constitutional, an issue that has been debated by scholars like Cass Sunstein and Richard Epstein. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United, holding that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures by corporations and unions, a ruling that has been compared to other notable First Amendment cases, such as Brandenburg v. Ohio and Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, which were decided by Justices like Hugo Black and William Douglas. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, found that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's ban on corporate expenditures was unconstitutional because it restricted the free speech rights of corporations, a claim that has been supported by advocacy groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Impact and Reactions

The Supreme Court's decision in the case has had significant implications for campaign finance in the United States, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent expenditures, such as broadcast ads and political action committees (PACs), which has raised concerns about the potential for corporate influence in politics, an issue that has been debated by scholars like Lawrence Lessig and Jonathan Turley. The decision has been criticized by Democrats like President Barack Obama and Senator Chuck Schumer, who argue that it will lead to increased corporate influence in politics and undermine the integrity of the electoral process, a claim that has been supported by advocacy groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen. On the other hand, Republicans like Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative John Boehner have praised the decision, arguing that it will promote free speech and increase transparency in campaign finance, a claim that has been supported by advocacy groups like the American Conservative Union and the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Aftermath and Legacy

The Supreme Court's decision in the case has led to a significant increase in independent expenditures by corporations and unions in federal elections, which has raised concerns about the potential for corporate influence in politics, an issue that has been debated by scholars like Cass Sunstein and Richard Epstein. The decision has also led to the creation of super PACs, which are independent expenditure-only committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, a development that has been criticized by advocacy groups like Common Cause and Public Citizen. In response to the decision, Congress has considered several campaign finance reform bills, including the DISCLOSE Act, which would require corporations and unions to disclose their independent expenditures, a proposal that has been supported by Democrats like President Barack Obama and Senator Chuck Schumer. The case has also been the subject of several books and documentaries, including "Citizens United: The Movie", which was produced by Robert Greenwald and features interviews with experts like Lawrence Lessig and Jonathan Turley. Category:United States Supreme Court cases