Previous 118 / 183 Next

Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 31 Opinion of STEVENS, J. 528 U. S. 32, 47, n. 4 (1999) (STEVENS, J., dissenting), particularly those that may reflect invidious discrimina tion or preferential treatment of a politically powerful group. But it is simply incorrect to suggest that we have prohibited all legislative distinctions based on identity or content. Not even close. The election context is distinctive in many ways, and the Court, of course, is right that the First Amendment closely guards political speech. But in this context, too, the au thority of legislatures to enact viewpoint-neutral regula tions based on content and identity is well settled. We have, for example, allowed state-run broadcasters to ex clude independent candidates from televised debates. Arkansas Ed. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U. S. 666 (1998).48 We have upheld statutes that prohibit the distri bution or display of campaign materials near a polling place. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U. S. 191 (1992).49 Al though we have not reviewed them directly, we have never cast doubt on laws that place special restrictions on cam paign spending by foreign nationals. See, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §441e(a)(1). And we have consistently approved laws that bar Government employees, but not others, from contrib —————— 48 I dissented in Forbes because the broadcaster’s decision to exclude the respondent from its debate was done “on the basis of entirely subjective, ad hoc judgments,” 523 U. S., at 690, that suggested anti competitive viewpoint discrimination, id., at 693–694, and lacked a compelling justification. Needless to say, my concerns do not apply to the instant case. 49 The law at issue in Burson was far from unusual. “[A]ll 50 States,” the Court observed, “limit access to the areas in or around polling places.” 504 U. S., at 206; see also Note, 91 Ky. L. J. 715, 729, n. 89, 747–769 (2003) (collecting statutes). I dissented in Burson because the evidence adduced to justify Tennessee’s law was “exceptionally thin,” 504 U. S., at 219, and “the reason for [the] restriction [had] disap pear[ed]” over time, id., at 223. “In short,” I concluded, “Tennessee ha[d] failed to point to any legitimate interest that would justify its selective regulation of campaign-related expression.” Id., at 225. These criticisms are inapplicable to the case before us.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Judgment

Question Presented: 1) Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional? 2) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"? 3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA? 4) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

Procedural history: Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president. In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support. Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.

Summary: No. No. Yes. Yes. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Conclusion: The Court invalidated section 441(b) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The majority held that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Legal Issue(s)

Campaign Finance
Electoral Integrity

Applicable Law(s): Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act- section 203. 2 U.S.C. section 441(b).

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jan 21, 2010

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.90371529

Longitude: -77.06409858

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Citizens United v. FEC.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Primary Documents

Notifications