Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Summary | quimbee.com

Citizens United (plaintiff) is a nonprofit corporation that primarily accepts funds from private donations, with a small portion of its funds coming from for-profit corporations. In January 2008, Citizens United produced a documentary film that was essentially a negative advertisement urging viewers to vote against then-Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary election. Citizens United released the film in theaters and on DVD, and began running advertisements about the film’s future release on video-on-demand. The film and advertisements amounted to “express advocacy” by Citizens United, and thus raised concerns under § 441(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Section 441(b) makes it a felony for all corporations–including nonprofit advocacy corporations–either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within thirty days of a primary election or sixty days of a general election. Section 441(b) carves out an exception for Political Action Committees (PACs) in that it permits the political speech of these groups, even when the PACs are formed by corporations. Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of § 441(b) in federal district court against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) (defendant) on the ground that § 441(b) was an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech for corporations. The district court ruled for the FEC, and Citizens United appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

[evanb]

"A citizen's "corporate identity". Lol, completely Orwellian.

[hockeyfan]

"No evidence to support that corporate speech corrupts the political process" Are you effing kidding me

[cardinalsfan]

This creep Bopp needs to be locked up in prison

[smhollanshead]

While a first amendment right can be used in a way that is detrimental, you can’t take away the freedoms granted to us in the Constitution. Just because you don’t like something does not give you the right to take away my first amendment freedoms.

[baronsecuna]

Scalia the all seeing ..” the founders wouldn’t consider today”s corporations the way the did of corporations back when constitution was written knows just what the founders were thinking....he is so smart ....

[yurielastillero]

I agree with the Framers' fear of corporate political speech, with a combination of wealth. And as an aspiring law student, I disagree with the ruling because it leads some corporations, mostly anti-environmental, to support candidates who are mostly anti-environmental, thus leading to a bitter divide between environmentalists and anti-environmentalists.

[Hopeofsuns]

and sadly scalia was murdered... one of our SCOTUS who made sense

[alwaysdisputin]

"this Court now concludes that independent expenditures,
including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption"
I've never heard anything so fucking ridiculous. Of course it can give rise to corruption. Have you never heard of the word 'bribery'? Your court is a fucking joke