Citizens United

Extracted Attributes

• Court

  United States Supreme Court

• Case Name

  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

• Key Ruling

  Restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment.

• Vote Count

  5-4

• Decision Date

  2010-01-21

• Legal Principle

  First Amendment's Free Speech Clause

• Prior Law Challenged

  Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act)

• Subject of Challenge

  "Hillary: The Movie"

• Supreme Court Citation

  558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Timeline

• Citizens United filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of statutory provisions governing 'electioneering communications'. (Source: Web Search)

  2007-12-13

• Citizens United released "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and planned to make it available via video-on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections. (Source: Web Search)

  2008-01

• The United States Supreme Court issued its 5-4 landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruling that restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment. (Source: Summary, Wikipedia, Web Search)

  2010-01-21

Citizens United v. FEC

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding campaign finance laws, in which the Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, while others criticized it as promoting corporate personhood and granting disproportionate political power to large corporations. The majority held that the prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment. The ruling barred restrictions on corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations from independent expenditures, allowing groups to independently support political candidates with financial resources. In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government". The decision remains highly controversial, generating much public discussion and receiving strong support or opposition from various politicians, commentators, and advocacy groups. Senator Mitch McConnell commended the decision, arguing that it represented "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights". By contrast, then-President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington".

Web Search Results

• Legal | Citizens United v. FEC

  Citizens United is a nonprofit membership organization registered with the IRS under 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4). One of Citizens United’s activities is the production and distribution of political films. Citizens United has produced a film entitled "Hillary: The Movie" about Senator Hillary Clinton. Citizens United intends to broadcast television ads promoting "Hillary: The Movie" and wishes to make the film available in theaters, through DVD sales and via home viewing through cable video-on-demand [...] In January 2008, Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, released a film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate in the Democratic Party’s 2008 Presidential primary elections. Citizens United wanted to pay cable companies to make the film available for free through video-on-demand, which allows digital cable subscribers to select programming from various menus, including movies. Citizens United planned to make the film available within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections, [...] Additional information: #### District court complaint On December 13, 2007, Citizens United, a nonprofit membership corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the statutory provisions governing disclaimers on, and disclosure and funding of, certain "electioneering communications" (ECs).

• Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding campaign finance laws, in which the Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles [...] Citizens United "Citizens United (organization)") had previously used the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or BCRA, which prohibited "electioneering communications" by incorporated entities. During the 2004 presidential campaign, the organization filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the [...] In December 2007, Citizens United filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of several statutory provisions governing "electioneering communications". It asked the court to declare that the prohibition on corporate and union funding were facially unconstitutional, and also as applied to Hillary: The Movie and to the 30-second advertisement for the movie, and to enjoin the Federal Election Commission from enforcing its regulations.

• Citizens United v. FEC | 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

  In 2004, conservative nonprofit organization Citizens United brought a complaint to the Federal Election Commission regarding Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary that discussed the events of September 11, 2001 from a perspective unfavorable to George W. Bush. They argued that the advertisements for the film were political advertising, which would bring them within the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This law had amended the Federal Election Campaign Act to [...] 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. 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. Concerned about possible civil and [...] 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. 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. Concerned about possible civil and

• Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election

  In the _Citizens United_ case, a conservative nonprofit group challenged campaign finance rules that ostensibly prohibited it from promoting a film that criticized then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Supreme Court could have issued a narrow opinion ruling on that specific group’s activities, but instead a 5–4 majority took the opportunity to rule that virtually all limits on “independent” political spending from corporations and other [...] To be clear, the Supreme Court is not solely responsible for the legal changes that made these activities possible; a dysfunctional federal regulator — the evenly divided Federal Election Commission (FEC) — and Congress have also played important roles. But none of it would have been possible without _Citizens United_ and related decisions, which have played an enduring role in putting the very wealthiest donors at the center of U.S. campaigns and governance. [...] The Brennan Center works to reform and defend our country’s systems of democracy and justice. Ensure Every American Can Vote Defend Our Elections Gerrymandering & Fair Representation Reform Money in Politics Strengthen Our Courts End Mass Incarceration Protect Liberty & Security Bolster Checks & Balances Advance Constitutional Change See All Issues Our WorkOur Work menu

• Citizens United Explained | Brennan Center for Justice

  Notably, overwhelming majorities of Americans across party lines have consistently expressed disapproval of _Citizens United_. At least 22 states and hundreds of cities have already voted to support a constitutional amendment to overturn it. And national polls routinelyshowthat reducing the influence of money in politics is a top policy priority for Americans, a finding consistent across demographics including race, age, and political party affiliation. [...] Over the long-term, _Citizens United_ would have to be overturned by a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court. In the meantime, there are policies that can combat the dominance of big money in politics and the lack of transparency. [...] _Citizens United_ allowed big political spenders to exploit the growing lack of transparency in political spending. This has contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups in federal elections. Dark money expenditures increased fromless than $5 millionin 2006 tomore than $1 billion in the 2024 presidential elections alone.

• Country

  United States

• Instance Of

  Q1762059

• Headquarters

  Washington, D.C.

• Inception Date

  1/1/1988