Facts of the Case
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.
Questions
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?
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"?
If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA?
Conclusions
-
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. 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. 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. In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.
State Court Docket Watch: Yurish v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
West Virginia High Court Affirms First Amendment Defense for Innocent Third Party Receipt and Publication of Illegal Audio Recordings
In 2001, in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a third party...
Justices Strike a Blow Against Cancel Culture: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court struck a blow for the freedom of association and against...
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring Michael Dimino
When a non-profit organization called Citizens United attempted to air and advertise a political documentary...
Can a New Establishment Clause Jurisprudence Succeed in Protecting Religious Minorities Where Lemon Has Failed?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 20
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Docket Watch: 1A Auto, Inc. v. Sullivan
Can a state ban employers–but not unions-from making political contributions?
Massachusetts law bans for-profit corporations and other business entities from contributing to political candidates and...
Docket Watch: Lair v. Mangan
Is the Supreme Court of the United States set to expand First Amendment protection for...
Liberty Month Revisited: Campaign Finance Reform Can’t Punish Free Speech
This month we are sharing a selection of paired pieces from The Federalist Society's Liberty...
The Supreme Court in Crisis: A Good Read, But No Crisis
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
A review of: American Justice 2017: The Supreme Court in Crisis, by Kimberly Robinson (University...
Don’t Court Trouble During the State of the Union Address
President Trump will deliver his first official State of the Union address, to a joint...
Bar Watch: Beware the ABA's Own Version of 'Judicial Activism'
Federalist Society expert Adam White published an article in the Weekly Standard yesterday criticizing the American...
Campaign Finance & Free Speech
Short video featuring John O. McGinnis
What are the limits on campaign financing under the First Amendment? Professor John O. McGinnis...
Campaign Finance Takeaways from the 2016 Election
2016 was a surprising year in politics. One surprise that hasn’t received much attention yet...
The Resurgence of Campaign Finance Regulation, Trumped?
Last March, during a Federalist Society teleforum discussing the Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision in Friedrichs v. California...
Size Doesn't Matter: Why Shrinking the Supreme Court Won't Promote Constitutionally Limited Government
The Supreme Court needs to be cut down to size. So argues Professor Michael Stokes...
Battle Against IRS's Tea Party Targeting Will Go Another Round in District Court
By now, the timeline is familiar. On January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court...
Book Review: The Intimidation Game
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article favorably reviews Kimberley Strassel’s new book about efforts by...
Book Review: Dark Money and Plutocrats United
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This book review takes a critical look at two recent books that...
Selective Fear of Foreign Influence: Applying FEC Commissioner Weintraub's Latest Citizens United Proposal to Unions
Steve Klein at Pillar of Law writes: In the New York Times last week, Commissioner Ellen Weintraub...
Without Justice Scalia, "Corruption" Cases May Get Hazier
Stephen Klein writes for Pillar of Law: After the unfortunate passing of Justice Antonin Scalia...
Campaign Finance and Free Speech Basics Up in Smoke in Illinois
Following Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations and unions may sponsor political advertising that...
First Amendment Comments for a Campaign Finance Coordination Proposal at the FEC
Campaign coordination is currently a hot topic in election law because many presidential candidates have...
Legal News Roundup: 9/21/2015
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial discussing recent calls by House Republicans to end...
Debate: Was Citizens United Wrongly Decided? - Audio/Video
Federalist Society with the American Constitution Society and the National Constitution Center
The National Constitution Center, the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society presented this debate on...
February 14, 2014: ABA Midyear Meeting in Chicago
ABA President's Address, House of Delegates, Awards, and a Legal Education Update
The ABA hosted its midyear meetings in Chicago from February 5-11. We highlight some of...
Book Review: Cosmic Constitutional Theory: Why Americans Are Losing Their Inalienable Right to Self-Governance
Engage Volume 14, Issue 2 July 2013
Other Reviews of Cosmic Constitutional Theory: •Marc O. Degirolami, The New Republic, Sept. 2012: http://www.newrepublic.com/book/review/cosmic-constitutional-theory-judicial-restraint...
Is Money Speech?
Short video featuring Eugene Volokh
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." --First Amendment, U.S. Constitution What...
Corporate Disclosure After Citizens United: Legislation, Regulation, and Shareholder Resolutions - Podcast
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
In the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, there has been a concerted...
State Court Docket Watch Summer 2012
In an effort to increase dialogue about state court jurisprudence, the Federalist Society presents State Court...
Supreme Court Reaffirms Its Holding from Citizens United
State Court Docket Watch Summer 2012
In denying a recent petition for certiorari and summarily reversing a decision of the Montana...
ABA House of Delegates Considers Policies on Religious Profiling, SLAPPs, and Campaign Finance
ABA Watch August 2012
Religious Profiling The Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities Criminal Justice Section has proposed Recommendation...
American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 06-29-12 featuring Bradley Smith
On June 25, 2012 the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in American Tradition...
Forgotten No More. A Review of Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly
Engage Volume 13, Issue 1, March 2012
It is a commonplace of constitutional interpretation that the shorter the constitutional provision, the more...
Montana Takes on Citizens United
State Court Docket Watch Spring 2012
From the Montana Supreme Court comes a potential challenge to the United States Supreme Court’s...
State Court Docket Watch Spring 2012
In an effort to increase dialogue about state court jurisprudence, the Federalist Society presents State...
Illuminating Citizens United: What the Decision Really Did
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of its most controversial decisions in...
Business Cases and the Roberts Supreme Court
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
The statement that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, and more specifically the Court...
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
The Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Groups
*Online-Only Issue* ADMINISTRATIVE LAW & REGULATION Goodbye Tax Exceptionalism by Kristin E. Hickman Thinking About...
Holding the Service's Feet to the Fire: Applying Citizens United and the First Amendment to the IRC § 501(c)(3) Political Prohibition
Engage Volume 11, Issue 3, December 2010
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC will have a lasting and profound...
Engage Volume 11, Issue 3, December 2010
The Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Groups
*Online-Only Issue* Special Edition: Templeton Debates Eminent Domain after Kelo Ilya Somin & Saul Levmore...
The Federalist Paper, November 2010
The Magazine of the Federalist Society
We are pleased to bring you the fall issue of The Federalist Paper. Inside, as...
State "Anti-SLAPP" Statutes Codify First Amendment Doctrine Protecting a Corporation's Right to Petition
Engage, Volume 11, Issue 2
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court found in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that...
DISCLOSE Act – The Legislative “Fix” to Citizens United
New Federal Initiatives Project
Brought to you by the Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group The Federalist Society takes...
Justice Stevens’ Retirement & Filling the Vacancy
Online Debate
Updated: 9 AM, May 5, 2010 On Friday, April 9, 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens...
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. ...
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. ...
Citizens United v. FEC: A Roundtable Discussion
Online Debate
Last updated: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 9 AM On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced...
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Post-Decision Debate SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 01-22-10 featuring Edward B. Foley, Erik S. Jaffe, & Bradley A. Smith
On January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. ...
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Post-Re-Argument SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 09-10-09 featuring James Bopp, Jr.
On September 9th, 2009, the Supreme Court heard re-argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election...