SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 1
Supreme Court Precedent Research Paper:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Assignment
Royal P McHenry
Helm School of Law/Government-Liberty University
August 3, 2025
Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n 558 US 310, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L.
Ed. 2d 753 - Supreme Court, 2010.
Introduction
The issue at hand has been brought to the United States Supreme Court from the United
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 2
States District of Columbia. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (aka BCRA enacted by
Congress in 2002, and its functions were addressed. Pursuant to 2 USC 441 (b) (1): “a
prohibition on certain political contributions and expenditures by corporations and
independent expenditures for speech in any media, broadcast, satellite or cable communication
that identified candidate for federal office 30 days of a primary or 60 days of general election”
(2 USC 441 (b) (1).
Fact Pattern
In January 2008, Citizens United released a 90-minute documentary Senator Hillary
Clinton film titled Hillary. It is a 90-minute documentary depicting Hillary Clinton a senator
candidate of the Democratic Party in 2008. The movie identified Senator Hillary, a presidential
primary elector by name and depicts interviews with political commentators wherein the cast
was critical of Senator Clinton. “Hillary was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United
wanted to increase distribution by making it available through video-on-demand” (United
Citizen v FEC 2010 p 881).
Jurisdiction
A judicial review of the three-judge district court whom rejected Citizens
United constitutional challenges of Section 441b was called into question by a
writ of certiorari.
Question of Law
“The question presented is whether Section 441b’s prohibition on
contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a
nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy”
(United Citizens v FEC 2010 p 3).
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 3
Precedence
In the matter at hand appellant Citizens United produce a film depicting Senator: Hillary
Clinton a front runner in the preliminaries for President of the United States of America. The
manner of which this video was to be communicable as the Citizens United argued that corporate
political speech was prohibited by 441b would be invalid. The issue was an evaluation of the effect of
Hillary Clinton, platform was to challenge the campaign finance law of Senators John McCain
and Russ Feingold. Thousands of scholar’s works, draft, opinions and from some of the greatest
legal minds in history is of the opinion the electoral and public policy process in the United
States has been characterized as abusive in recent years (Foley, McConnell, Pildes, Smith, 2022).
McConnell v. FEC, (2003) was the principal discussion by Justice Kennedy of this case-in-chief. Of
which was previously held in light of section 441b provisions against the broad facial
constitutional challenges. Analyzing Section 441b, “Section 441b prohibits corporations from
making certain independent expenditures to support candidates for federal office and
implement advocacy of a candidate running for federal office in a negative light. So the question
becomes if the statutory prohibition applicable to corporate political speech is constitutional for
the purpose of jurisdiction. However the legal aspect Hillary Clinton against Citizen United for
libel and defamation of character could possibly occur.
Fundamental ideas of liberty (Bastiat’s The Law)
Great philosophers such as John Locke, Montesquieu, and Bastiate, all conform to the
main purpose of any government must be predicated upon the protection of the lives, liberties,
and property of its citizens. Bastiat believed that all human beings possessed the God-given,
natural rights of individuality, liberty, and property.” “This is man,” he wrote. These “three gifts
from God precede all human legislation” (Bastiat 2007 p 3). His theory tends to defend section
441 (B), such that the media may not be instrumental to defining the character of humans,
especially a corporate identity/governmental official who’s subjected to secular opinions.
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 4
The United States Constitution
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.
S. Const. amend. 1). Foley et al. (2022) point out that the original ECA from 1887 was vague.
Frédéric Bastiat (2007) stated that “The law should protect and defend life, liberty, and
property, and not be used to favor partisan causes and redistribute power” (Bastiat 2007, p. 3).
When it is used for any other purpose, it become a tool of abuse. Ambiguity in law is an
opportunity for political actors to try to weaponize and abuse the system. The reform is an
opportunity to remove any unnecessary complexity and return the law to its intended function.
Justice Kennedy indicated in his opinion the section 411(b) was an extension to BCRA that shuts
the freedom of speech down to a minimum; “(a) Although, the First Amendment provides that
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech § 441b's prohibition on corporate
independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions” (Citizen
United v FEC p 883).
United States founding documents
As a new nation of government was being created the immigrants of England carried the
document titled The Magna Carter. The most important of the structure of law and policy in
our government was modified from the Magna charter and the Bill of Rights (Siddiqi, etc.,
2023).
Other principles of good government
Several global constitutions were written for governmental structures and human
developmental censors. The Madinah treaty is the truce made of the residence of Madinah.
Whereas Magna Carta’s agreement was a documentation of the Barons and English King John.
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 5
Both of these pacts are necessary development that focuses on human rights.
Biblical principles
The love of money being a root of evil (1 Timothy 6:10). Biblical principles encourage
generosity and care for the poor and vulnerable. There are also passages that condemn those
who get rich through oppression or fail to share their wealth (Jeremiah 5:26-29). Some argue
that large sums of money in politics, particularly from corporations, can create an imbalance of
influence and lead to corruption or an appearance of corruption, potentially overriding the
interests of ordinary citizens and increasing political dark money according to the Center for
Public Integrity (Konieczna, 2018). The Citizens United ruling essentially lifted restrictions on
independent expenditures by corporations and unions during elections, arguing that such
spending is protected under the First Amendment and does not inherently lead to corruption.
Free Speech: The Bible affirms the importance of speech and speaking truth. While it doesn't
explicitly discuss freedom of speech as a legal concept, it encourages speaking up for the
voiceless and defending the rights of the poor and needy (Proverbs 31:8-9). However, it also
calls Christians to speak with grace and truth, building others up rather than tearing them down
(Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 4:6). Some Christians might argue that the ruling promotes a
broader platform for diverse voices and ideas, including those with biblical perspectives, while
others might express concerns about the potential for speech to be distorted or used to
manipulate public opinion, especially when linked to significant financial resources.
Corporate Personhood: The Bible emphasizes both personal and corporate responsibility. In
theological contexts, corporate personality or corporate solidarity refers to the idea that a
group can be so identified with an individual that the actions of the individual affect the group.
Some Christians interpret the concept of corporate personhood in the Citizens United case,
which grants corporations certain First Amendment rights, as potentially clashing with biblical
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 6
principles regarding individual accountability and the purpose of businesses. They may argue
that the focus should be on the individual actions and responsibilities of people within the
corporation, rather than extending personhood to the entity itself.
Reference
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990).
Bastiat, F. (2007). Bastiat Collection, The. Ludwig von Mises Institute.. (Original work
published (1850) https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Bastiat%20Collection_4.pdf Citizens
United v. Federal Election Com'n 558 US 310, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L.
Ed. 2d 753 - Supreme Court, 2010
Foley, E. B., Foley McConnell, M. W., Pildes, R. H., & Smith, B. (2022). Fix the Electoral
Count Act: A nonpartisan reform could render the counting of votes in the Electoral
College simple, straightforward, transparent uncontroversial. How to avoid another
January 6. Hoover Digest, 86+.https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A704285495/GBIB?u=vic
Konieczna, M. (2018). Evolving, Rather than Policing, the Boundary: A case study of the
(1) development of the Center for Public Integrity. Digital Journalism, 6(6),
759776.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission 251 F. Supp. 2d 919 - Dist. Court, Dist. Of
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 7
Columbia, 2003: 540 U. S. 93, 203–209 (2003)
Siddiqi, H. M. A., Sultana, M., Rehman, A. U., Shah, S. F. U. R., Batool, T., Qadri, H. K. A., ...
& Akhter, S. (2023). Common Attributes Of The Constitution Of Madina And Magna
Carta: Analytical Study From A Historical Perspective. Russian Law Journal,
11(9S), 663-679.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b
Biblical
King James Version/1697/2020: Colossians 4:6
King James Version/1697/2020: Ephesians 4:29 King
James Version/1697/2020: Proverbs 31:8-9
King James Version/1697/2020: (1 Timothy 6:10).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
