Citizens United (Or how companies established themselves as human with rights)
“Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president…
“In an attempt to regulate “big money” campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to “electioneering communications.” Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support…
“Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances.”
Citizens United posed the following questions: “1) Did the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional?
2) Do the BCRA’s disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected “political speech” and not subject to regulation as “campaign speech”?
3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA?
4) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?”
The Supreme Court decided the case 5–4 (with Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas ruling in favor). In answer to question 1, no. In answer to question 2, no. In answer to question 3, yes. In answer to question 4, yes. Under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.
The aftermath of the Supreme Court Case includes an explosion of independent political spending.
Reasons to oppose Citizens United aligns with protecting the majority middle class from the interests of the minor rich. Domination of ideas now comes from ability to broadcast them rather than merit. When money rules ability to get into office, politicians will have to spend more time courting the wealthy instead of working with constituents or governing. Large companies have a anti-competition advantage over smaller ones.
