In January 2008, Citizens United released a film entitled Hillary: The Movie. Most of its funds are from donations by individuals but, in addition, it accepts a small portion of its funds from for-profit corporations. The resulting judgment gives rise to this appeal.Ĭitizens United has an annual budget of about $12 million. A three-judge court later convened to hear the cause. It brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of *887 Columbia. I AĬitizens United is a nonprofit corporation.
The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. 2652, 168 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007) (WRTL) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It has been noted that “ Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles,” Federal Election Comm’n v. In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. Austin had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity. The holding of McConnell rested to a large extent on an earlier case, Austin v. Limits on electioneering communications were upheld in McConnell v. Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.įederal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Herring, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Waxman, for Senator John McCain, as amici curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Appellee. Olson, for Appellant.Floyd Abrams, for Senator Mitch McConnell as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Appellant.Įlena Kagan, Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Concerned about possible civil and criminal penalties for violating §441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) §441b is unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and (2) BCRA’s disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA §§201 and 311, were unconstitutional as applied to Hillary and the ads. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. In January 2008, appellant Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for her party’s Presidential nomination. An electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary election, §434(f)(3)(A), and that is “publicly distributed,” 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2), which in “the case of a candidate for nomination for President … means” that the communication “an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election … is being held within 30 days,” §100.29(b)(3)(ii). The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.
0 kommentar(er)
