Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) was a landmark case heard by the United States Supreme Court. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United, a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) placed strict limits on when political advertisements could be aired.

A conservative non-profit organization called Citizens United wanted to publish a video casting then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a negative light closer to an election than the BCRA would allow. The group sued, arguing that the restrictions imposed by the government were unconstitutional. The US District Court of Washington D.C. ruled against Citizens United, and the case escalated to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, arguing that applying separate standards for free speech to individuals and organizations violated the First Amendment. The Court expressed concern that future laws could be passed to restrict an organization’s right to publish in the media, which could possibly warp public perceptions.

However, coupled with another landmark ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has allowed powerful super political action committees (super PACs) to generate and spend extreme amounts of money on elections. This strongly influences the way voters perceive candidates.

Background

To help reform electoral funding in the United States, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002. In Section 203, the BCRA forbid corporations from using their funds to help finance election-related advertisements and communications within sixty days of a general election and within thirty days of a primary election. This was intended to reduce the ways in which corporations can influence elections within the United States.

The regulations proposed by the BCRA were enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The conservative organization Citizens United sought an injunction against the FEC in 2008. This is a judicial order that restrains one legal entity from violating the rights of another entity or that compels a party to take an action. Citizens United wanted to use a film it had made in 2008, Hillary: The Movie, to influence the primary elections. The film was designed to influence public opinion against then presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton.

Citizens United argued that the BCRA was unconstitutional. It alleged that restricting the publication of Hillary: The Movie was violating the First Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids the government from abridging the freedom of speech. It also argued that parts of the BCRA beyond Section 203, such as requiring the identification of sponsors on certain forms of communication, violated the First Amendment.

Overview

The case was first heard by the US District Court in Washington D.C. The District Court ruled against Citizens United on all counts. Citizens United argued that because the film did not directly advise voters to vote for or against Clinton, Hillary: The Movie should not be regulated by the BCRA. However, the District Court found that the film expressed a functional equivalent of advocating for or against Clinton as a candidate, as was required by a previous Supreme Court decision.

After the District Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court agreed to rehear the case. It heard oral arguments on March 24, 2009, and reargued the case during a special session on September 9, 2009. The Supreme Court then ruled in favor of Citizens United. The Court felt that a ban on political speech was unconstitutional unless it served a compelling interest of the state. Additionally, one part of the BCRA specified that corporations and individuals were to be granted different levels of free speech, something that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also worried that future bills could be interpreted in a manner that allowed them to ban the free speech of media corporations in addition to political corporations, forcing newspapers to heavily restrict the information they published near elections, even though the BCRA specifically forbid such interactions. However, the Supreme Court did agree that the sources for political spending should be revealed to prevent corruption. The Court also argued that average citizens would be able to use the Internet to find out which politicians were supported by which moneyed interests, allowing them to make informed decisions as voters.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Paul Stevens, warned of the consequences of voiding the BCRA. Stevens argued that the result of voiding the BCRA could allow corporate speech to overpower the speech of individuals, handing larger corporations an unprecedented amount of influence in the political sphere. He argued that the court’s decision ignored the service that such a regulation was intended to serve for the state and the decision may reduce the power of average Americans to have a say in their governance.

In 2010, a related case declared that it was unconstitutional to limit the amount of money that individuals or corporations could give to organizations supporting political candidates, citing the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United as supporting evidence. Collectively, these two decisions had a profound impact on American politics. They allowed the creation of super political action committees (super PACs), which could generate and spend almost unlimited amounts of money to support the campaigns of various political candidates. These super PACs could outspend the vast majority of individual citizens, heavily influencing media perception and public discourse. Some organizations also set themselves up as social welfare organizations, making the money collected and spent exempt from traditional taxes. This also allows such organizations to avoid disclosing their donors, masking the donors. Masking the donors to political campaigns circumvents citizens’ ability to research the people who provide the money behind candidates, defeating the safeguards that the Supreme Court envisioned when making its ruling on Citizens United.

Bibliography

Cillizza, Chris. “How Citizens United Changed Politics, in 7 Charts.” The Washington Post, 22 Jan. 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/21/how-citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/?noredirect=on&utm‗term=.cb87d9b67d6c. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

Castleton, Scott. “It's Time for Liberals to Get Over Citizens United,” Vox, 7 May, 2018, www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/7/17325486/citizens-united-money-politics-dark-money-vouchers-primaries. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

“Citizens United vs. FEC,” History.com, 2019, www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/citizens-united. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

Cole, David. “Artificial Persons,” The Nation, 6 Jun. 2018, www.thenation.com/article/artificial-persons/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

Murse, Tom. “The Citizens United Ruling,” ThoughtCo., 22 May, 2017, www.thoughtco.com/the-citizens-united-ruling-3367927. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

Murse, Tom. “The Era of the Super PAC in American Politics.” ThoughtCo., 25 Jan. 2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-super-pac-3367928. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

“The Impact of Citizens United on Congressional Elections.” Georgetown University, gai.georgetown.edu/the-impact-of-citizens-united-on-congressional-elections. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.

Toobin, Jeffrey. “Money Unlimited,” The New Yorker, 21 May, 2012, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited. Accessed 19 Feb. 2019.