311 Wk 3 F / For WIZARD KIM

Casey Lee

Week 3 Case Brief Assignment

BUSN311

American Public University

Date

CASE BRIEF

Case Citation: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Facts:

Citizen United were seeking a ruling against the Federal Election Commission in the District Court of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). This Act prevents big money campaign contributions by applying a various restriction to electioneering communication. This applies to corporations and labor unions, where they are barred from funding communication from general treasuries. The Act also requires the donors for campaign communications disclosed and disclaimer when such communications are not authorized by the candidate who it intends to support. According to the Citizen United, Section 203 violates the First Amendment when applied to the movie and related adverts, and Section 201 and 203 were unconstitutional when applied to the case.

Procedural history:

The case followed the release of a 90-minute documentary name Hillary; the Movie. The movie expressed opinion whether Hillary was fit to run for the presidential seat on democratic ticket. Citizen United took the role of popularizing the movie by selling it in theatres and DVDs, and making it available through videos on demand. In a bid to publish the Movie, Citizen United used its treasury fund. This was against the provisions of Sections 2043 that prohibits organization from using funds from their general treasury funds for campaign communications. The decision of the court was based on the fact that Section 203 was not unconstitutional on its face because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached determination. Besides, the District Court also upheld that the movie just perfumed an equivalent function of expressing advocacy because it attempted to inform the voters that Senator Clinton was not fit for office, therefore, Section 203 was applied according to the constitution (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).

Issue:

The issue on appeal was to find out whether Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent lection expenses was constitutional and whether BCRA disclaimer, disclosure, and reporting requirements were constitutional.

Rule(s):

The United States District denied the injunction. Section 203 was not unconstitutional on its face because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached determination. Besides, the District Court also upheld that the movie just perfumed an equivalent function of expressing advocacy because it attempted to inform the voters that Senator Clinton was not fit for office, therefore, Section 203 was applied according to the constitution. The District Court also ruled that Sections 201 and 203 were constitutionally applied to the Movie or its advertisement. According to the case of McConnell, it was recognized that disclosure of donors might be unconstitutional if it sabotaged the freedom to associate with a particular course, but these claims were not part of the Citizen United claim.

Application/Analysis:

Since the court not determine the case without chilling a political speech, the case was broadened from the Citizens United initial argument, and focused specifically on Hillary, to consider the validity of both the prior decision in Austin McConnell and the facial validity of §441b. The court resolved that Citizen’s United Narrower argument, including Hillary is not an electioneering communication, and cannot be sustained under fair hearing of §441b, and the need to consider the statutes facial validity or risk prolonging its substantial chilling effect (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).

Conclusion:

In the affirming of the BCRA’s requirement for corporations to disclose their spending, the court upheld that First amendment protects political speech, and shareholders’ respond to the speech of corporations in the right way. The court also found that disclaimers aid voters by ensuring that they are well informed about the one speaking political message.

References:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (Supreme Court of the United States January 21, 2010).