Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

By Vincent Rhys DaRin

Background

In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act in an attempt to increase control in elections. The law made it necessary for campaigns to divulge their contributions. Additionally, it created the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to oversee elections and campaign disclosures. In Buckley v. Valeo, 421 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that the FEC could control and restrict the amount of finances a campaign could receive, but could not limit the amount that they spend. As a result of this decision, the concept of “hard money” and “soft money” was created. “Hard money” is defined as donating directly to a campaign, while “soft money” is funds donated to an organization that promotes different policy matters and candidates. Over the course of three decades, the desire to stop “soft money” became a popular belief held by the American people, with many wanting their representatives to enact such a bill. In response, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was written. The act restricted political parties or candidates from soliciting or using “soft money” in any federal elections. It forced organizations to publicly inform viewers who the donors were, disclose the connections the organization has to candidates, and not broadcast any ads funded by “soft money” thirty days before the day of the election.

Introduction

During the 2008 election, a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United created a film named Hillary: The Movie. The film was a documentary that criticized the actions and credibility of Senator Hillary Clinton. Citizens United wanted to have the film be on both cable TV and as an on-demand movie. The organization argued that since they did not directly tell the viewer who to vote for, it was not constrained by any campaign laws. The federal district court disagreed, as they believed it directly told viewers that Hillary Clinton was unfit to be president. As such, Hillary: The Movie would have to disclose its donors, their connection to campaigns, and the film would not be allowed to run within thirty days of the presidential election. Citizens United challenged the decision, arguing their film should not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission.

Timeline of the Case

Oral arguments for the case occurred on March 24th, 2009, with oral rearguments happening on September 9th, 2009. The Court had a second round of oral arguments as they wanted to make rulings on issues further than the one that Court had originally granted a Certiorari for. During oral arguments, Citizens United made the argument that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act infringed on the 1st Amendment, and they should not be forced to acknowledge their donors or have a disclaimer that the candidate the film supports did not directly authorize it. Additionally, they argued that the Federal Election Commission should not be allowed to restrict when they could play their film, as that infringes on their 1st Amendment right to free speech. The Federal Election Commission argued that Citizens United’s film was tantamount to advocacy against Senator Clinton, as it argued she was not fit to be the president. As such, the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act on Citizens United was not unconstitutional, and followed the laws written.

Decision

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. The split between the Justices coincided with ideological divides, with the Republican appointed Justices voting in favor, and the three Democratic appointed Justices dissenting. The only exception to this rule was Justice Stevens, as he was appointed by a Republican but dissented with the decision. The Court ruled that the Federal Election Commission cannot restrict the financing of independent broadcasts from donors, as it unconstitutionally infringed on the 1st Amendment. They held that free speech is integral to the political system, whether or not that speech comes from an individual or organizations. As such, Hillary: The Movie and any further non-campaign created films or advertisements can be on cable TV at any point during the election cycle. The Court did rule that any broadcasts by organizations would have to meet any disclosure stipulations, as it provides the voter base with necessary information to make an educated decision. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Stevens writing the dissenting opinion. In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts attempted to explain the caution the Court takes into account while making their decision, as they want to avoid a constitutional crisis from occurring. He stated that this decision was broader than most decisions as there was only the 1st Amendment to rule upon.

Aftermath

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), led to the creation of super PACs. PACs are political action committees. They are organizations that raise and spend money to elect, or prevent the election, or candidates. In applying the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, many lower courts began to strike down any fundraising regulation on organizations. This allowed for super PACs to be created, which are PACs that can receive unlimited contributions from individual people, companies, or labor unions. These super PACs now create and fund many advertisements in advocacy of candidates, while being funded by unlimited independent expenditures from private donors. These advertisements are not made by the candidate, and are completely independently funded. Many American citizens and representatives have levied attacks against the decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission due to it allowing for the creation of super PACs, arguing that election results are now decided on who has the most money.

Bibliography

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Buckley v. Valeo, 421 U.S. 1 (1976)
U.S. Const. amend. I
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002)
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3 (1972)
Ballotpedia, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
Legal Information Institute, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
Oyez, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
National Public Radio, “Hillary: The Movie” Opens at the Supreme Court
SCOTUSblog, Citizens United v. FEC in Plain English
Federal Election Commission, Political Action Committees (PACs)
Brennan Center for Justice, Citizens United Explained