Thoron 1

Gray Thoron

12/10/2018

Government/ English 4A

Ms. Baker/ Mr. Brandes

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United was argued twice on two separate issues. The first oral arguments dealt

with Citizens United’s film ​Hillary: The Movie​ and the ban the Federal Election Commission

(FEC) levied on marketing the movie. The second oral arguments broadened the case, arguing

that the financial limits that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) places on companies

and corporations are unconstitutional.

The First Amendment’s extension to corporations was on the line.

In 2008, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit referred to the tax documents as a

social welfare, made a documentary titled ​Hillary: The Movie​. This was not the first

documentary that Citizens United made, beginning in 2004, after the not for profit noticed the

docudrama ​Fahrenheit 9/11​ using explosive advertisements right before the 2004 general

election. Wanting to replicate the perceived success of ​Fahrenheit 9/11,​ Citizens United released

Hillary: The Movie​, which included such partisan quotes such as “She’s driven by the power,”

“She’s deceitful,”, and “reckless”. The FEC banned the advertising of ​The Movie​ and Citizens

United sued.

The Federal Election Commission cited the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also

known as the McCain-Feingold Act, that limited what ads could be shown in 60 days leading up

to an election. Ads targeting specific candidates were penalized while policy ads were not as
 Thoron 2

regulated. More importantly, if money was used from a nonprofit’s treasury in the production

and distribution of the campaign ad, the FEC could ban the ad. The FEC took the stance that the

movie was a targeted ad in the form of a documentary, comparing it to long infomercials.

In the first oral arguments, Citizens United argued that the documentary was just that, an

informative film and that the film was protected under the first amendment as an entry into a

political debate. Liberal Justices attacked the integrity of the film calling it “campaign advocacy”

and electioneering. When the FEC had its turn, the lawyer took the approached laid out before

him by the FEC, arguing the documentary’s primary goal is to influence voters. However, the

lawyer found themselves quickly surrounded by the conservative justices, poking to see where

the boundaries of the law lied. The justices used the example of a book with a political message

as their weapon, eventually getting the lawyer to admit that if a book had the words “vote for x”,

then yes, Congress could ban the production and distribution of the book.

On the last day of the 2009 Supreme Court term, Chief Justice John Roberts announced

that Citizens United v. the Federal Election Committee was going to be tried the following term

on the basis of whether the BCRA is restricting the free speech of corporations.

In a 5-4 decision the following term, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.

As Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy put it in the majority opinion, “If the First Amendment

has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for

simply engaging in political speech.” Under the law as written, the BCRA could restrict the

ACLU for listing candidates that support civil rights. Associate Justice John Paul Stevens

scorched the majority opinion, saying “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the

common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations
 Thoron 3

from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the

distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore

Roosevelt.”

On the days following the ruling, President Obama attacked the ruling in his State of the

Union, saying it “will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign

corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.” Associate Justice Samuel Alito was seen

mouthing the words “not true”, he was in fact, incorrect. Money has begun flowing freely and

quickly into our elections and we saw Russian interference in the 2016 general election as well

as foreign corporations buying ads on Facebook.

In short, the Court ruled that people do not lose their freedom of speech when they

assemble, allowing for corporate money into our elections.

 Thoron 4

Works Cited

Bai, Matt. “How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game?” ​The New York Times​,

The New York Times, 17 July 2012,

www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-pol

itical-game.html.

“Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.” ​Ballotpedia​,

ballotpedia.org/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act.

“Citizens United v. FEC (Supreme Court).” ​FEC.gov​, 1 Feb. 2010,

www.fec.gov/updates/citizens-united-v-fecsupreme-court/.

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." ​Oyez,​ 25 Dec. 2018,

www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205.

“Citizens United | More Perfect.” ​Wnycstudios,​ WNYC Studios, 2 Nov. 2017,

www.wnycstudios.org/story/citizens-united.

Toobin, Jeffrey. “How Chief Justice John Roberts Orchestrated the Citizens United Decision.”

The New Yorker​, The New Yorker, 13 July 2018,

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited.