Homeless History: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Introduction

• Focus: Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC)
• Importance: Required for AP Government curriculum

Background of Campaign Finance Laws

• Mention: Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act (BCRA) of 2002
• Key Rule: Illegal for corporations/non-profits to engage in electioneering communications:
  • 60 days before an election
  • 30 days before a primary

Case Details

• Situation: 2008 Democratic primaries, contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
• Citizens United created "Hillary: The Movie," attacking Clinton
• Issue: Film release fell within forbidden period as per BCRA
• Action: Citizens United challenged this portion of the law, case went to the Supreme Court

Constitutional Principle

• Argument: BCRA's prohibition on electioneering by corporations violated the First Amendment
• Context: Since the 1800s, corporations seen as associations of individuals; constitutional liberties often extend to them

Supreme Court Decision

• Outcome: 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United
• Reasoning: Limits on corporations were similar to government censorship of individual speech
• Result: Struck down part of BCRA

Impact and Significance

• Broader Question: Does more money mean louder political voice? Is this fair?
• Ruling Implication: Organizations can spend unlimited money on political communications up to election day, provided no direct collaboration with candidates
• Issue: Campaign finance reform laws aimed to curb corruption, but Supreme Court decision implies spending doesn’t equate to corruption

Conclusion

• Ongoing Debate: Issue remains contentious among the public
• Resources: Additional videos and review packets available for further study

• Note: These notes summarize key points about the Citizens United v. FEC case, its background, implications, and ongoing relevance in the political and legal landscape.