Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission Case Study

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

The issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush’s response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that money is

Citizens United is an organization that wants to restore citizen control of the United States government. They want to restore the America back to a free nation that has a limited government. The way that they achieve this is to produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films. In 2009, Citizen United sued the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United stated that it was illegal to limit a corporation from spending its treasury money to support or attack candidates in presidential elections. This led to outside groups such as the Super PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money. Super PACs are an independent political action committee. They could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, and other individuals.

Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 distinguished the Bethel School District v. Fraser ruling. The case dealt with the regulations of campaign advertising produced by an organization. In the early months of 2008, The Citizens Untied Corporation released a documentary about why Hillary Clinton would make a good president. The corporation’s plan was to make the documentary accessible 30 days before the primary election. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act however prohibits corporations from producing advertisements that advocates for or against a candidate 60 days prior to an election or 30 days prior to a primary election. The question at hand in this case was whether the BCRA violated the organization’s First Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the BCRA’s restrictions. The high court decided that the law limited what people could say and when they would say it in regards to the election. It also ruled that the Federal Law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution. The court however, upheld certain requirements for public disclosure by means of advertisements. The court distinguished the Bethel School District v. Fraser ruling when they “upheld a narrow class of speech that operates to the disadvantage of certain persons” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S.

The 1970s began a more active era of campaign finance reform. The passing of the Revenue Act of 1971 allows citizens to contribute one dollar to a presidential candidate’s campaign fund by checking a box on their federal income tax returns. Along with the Revenue Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act was also passed in 1971. This law institutes disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees of donations more than $100. This law also sets a spending limit of $50,000

“Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor” (2). The majority supported their decision by stating that corporation donations to a candidate election is a method of free speech, which means it must be protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, those disagreeing with this stance viewed corporations as businesses, rather than people, and believed that having no regulations and limits on contributions would cause the voices of individuals with average means to be drowned out by the money donated by major corporations. The protection given to corporations by the First Amendment basically meant that corporations were seen as people, rather than as businesses. Additionally, the majority also ruled that the disclosure requirements set by the McCain-Feingold Act were constitutional for the movie because there is “governmental interest in providing the electorate with information about election-related spending resources” (3). Despite all the changes made regarding financial contributions towards candidates, the ban on direct financial donations and aids to candidates from corporations was upheld by the Court.

These laws were the perfect way for the state to make sure that the system is stable in the future. Just recently on April 2nd, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down the overall cap on monetary political donations. This is a classic case of the state adopting policies to ensure the stability of the system. Coping the scheme of citizens united the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allows an individual to donate as much money as they please to federal candidates in a two year election cycle. Although federal law bans direct contributions to campaigners by corporations and business, super pacs allow money to get to the politicians without direct contact. But this law still allows wealthy individuals to support the candidates that will represent their needs and wants in the national government. This creates an unfair system aimed at helping the elites because they will have more money to donate therefore will have more of the campaigners attention. Justice Breyer realized the importance of this decision being turned down and was recorded writing “Where enough money calls the tune,” he wrote, “the general public will not be heard.” (New York Times).

The main constitutional question within the case of Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 regarded whether sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act infringed upon the free speech clause granted to the people through the First Amendment. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) instituted in 2002 controlled how political campaigns could be financed. The act criminalized ads produced by corporations that expressly advocate for or against candidates within sixty days of general elections and thirty days of primary elections. A claim was made that in preventing funding of political campaigning by certain corporations, the government was essentially preventing them from demonstrating free political speech and breaching

Next, in 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), while President George W. Bush held office (Magleby, Light, & Nemacheck, 2015, p. 250). The BCRA bill was extremely important because individuals were the focal point of campaign contributions along with

The debate would make it all the way to the Supreme Court, who would uphold the law saying the law maintained campaign integrity and prevented corruption. The Supreme Court did, however, remove spending limits as long as the money was spent to expressly endorse a candidate. In 1979, FECA is further amended to allow individuals, unions, and corporations to give unlimited funds for “party building.” The amendment created what was called “soft money” donations and was a large loophole in the system. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banned soft money, unlimited contributions, and prohibited political ads made by unions and corporations from airing within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. The law would be taken to the Supreme Court twice in 2003 and 2007. Despite both times resulting in a 5-4 vote in favor of the law, the 2007 case would remove the political ad ban. Finally, the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case would not only dismantle the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act but allow for the formation of Super PACs which they stated did not promote corruption (Rowen, n.d.). SuperPACs have launched campaign finance reform back into the spotlight and are crucial to any discussion on the subject today.

Ever since the born of United States Bill of Rights, controversy and discussion about the right First Amendment guaranteed, the freedom of speech, has never stopped. The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, shown a new standpoint of Supreme Court of the United States in aspects of political equality and freedom of speech, has become a significant landmark in political history. According to the adjudication of this case, shareholders and other groups have the equal right as individual, and they are allowed to invest for supporting or criticizing political candidates.

In 2012, in an effort to win reelection as President of the United States, Barack Obama raised $1072.6 million dollars. $78.8 million of it was raised by the Priorities USA Action Super PAC. (Ashkenas, Ericson, Parlapiano, and Willis, 2012) PACs or Political Action Committees are groups formed in order to raise and spend money for a political candidate. PACs began in 1944 and had strict guidelines set by the Federal Election Committee in which an individual could only donate $2,500 to a PAC and companies were not allowed to donate money. This changed in 2010 with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizens United in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case which indirectly led to the formation of Super PACs which allowed for unlimited spending and unlimited donations from individuals or corporations to political

In January of 2008 Citizens United released a documentary of Hilary Clinton, hoping that it would make her available on video on demand within 30 days of the primary elections. Citizens United had ads to run on television, but were afraid of the possible penalties for violating(ss441b). They argued that (ss441b) is unconstitutional to be applied to Hillary and also BCRA’s disclaimer requirements. BCRA 201 and 311 were unconstitutional when related to Hillary and the ads. The District Court denied citizens united injunction and granted appellee FEC summary

Efforts to regulate campaign finance, in particular, the Federal Election Campaign Act, have been based on mistaken assumptions about the role of money in politics and on the mistaken belief that eliminating or reducing money will in some way make the process more fair, the playing field more level. In fact, spending on political campaigns is hardly extravagant, amounting to only a few dollars per eligible voter every two years. Because there is no a priori correct allocation of political advantages, including money, efforts to control this one feature of the political landscape have tended to have serious detrimental side effects, including the entrenchment of incumbents and the stifling of new, alternative political choices. FECA and its

To combat too much political influence from advertising, the federal government passed a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) or as it’s more commonly known, the McCain-Feingold Act. The BCRA sought to expand disclosure on soft money and changed some limits on hard money. The key piece of this legislation is the electioneering communications statute, or section 203. This piece of BCRA was intended to limit the influence of PACs by restricting their ability to air advertisements right before elections. McCain-Feingold prevented corporations and PACs from showing political commercials sixty days before an election and thirty days before a primary (FEC BCRA 90).