Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission Bipartisan Campaign

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 [Mc. Cain-Feingold] • “prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds [within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election] to make independent expenditures for speech that is ‘electioneering communications’, i. e. speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate”

“electioneering communications” • “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office”

PACs • Corporations and unions can establish Political Action Committees for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes

“Hillary-the Movie” • Citizens United had a documentary made which was critical of Hillary Clinton – The purpose of the film was “ to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world and that viewers should vote against her” • Shown in theatres in 6 cities • Available on DVD and the Internet

The Issue • Citizens United wanted to run the film on cable and video on demand within 30 days of primary elections in 2008 and were afraid of running afoul of Mc. Cain-Feingold • They challenged the constitutionality of the law

In the Supreme Court • The Court held oral argument twice • In a 5 -4 decision, the majority (Kennedy) overruled 2 earlier decisions that upheld restrictions on corporations and unions spending to support or oppose political candidates • Citizens United should have been allowed to engage in the speech

Majority Opinion (J. Kennedy) Political speech has the highest level of 1 A protection. Strict scrutiny is the test to be applied if a law restricts political speech: “compelling state interest” “narrowly tailored”

1 A Issue • “. . . A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign. . . Necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of audience reached. ” (Buckley v. Valeo)

“Compelling State Interest” According to Buckley v. Valeo: the compelling state interest would be quid pro quo corruption, i. e. contributions buy political favors This is lacking “Favoritism and influence are not. . . avoidable in representative politics. ” even the appearance of corruption will not undermine the voters’ faith in democracy.