From Ballotpedia Show
The Court's decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that banned for-profit and not-for-profit corporations and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.[1] The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[2] The decision upheld, however, the requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements, and the ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidates.[3] Background Congressman Jim Greenwood joins (left to right) Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold and Representatives Tim Roemer and Ellen Tauscher to endorse the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) banned the airing of electioneering communications, defined as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication mentioning a candidate, within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. It also prohibited corporations (and nonprofit organizations) and unions from making expenditures on such communications.[4] Decision
The majority opinion, which was delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, found that section §441b of the Federal Election Campaign Act's restrictions on expenditures were invalid and could not be applied to spending like that in the film in question. Kennedy wrote: "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." He noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[1] The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which had previously held that a Michigan Campaign Finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act §203's extension of the Federal Election Campaign Act §441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures. The Court found that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act §§201 and 311 were valid as applied to the ads for Hillary and to the movie itself. Anthony Kennedy led the majority opinion along with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia. Justice John Paul Stevens led the dissenting opinion and was joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.[5] AnalysisThe Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech applies to corporations and thus the government cannot limit their political spending.[6] Citizens United argued that their film Hillary: The Movie was not electioneering and therefore not subject to the McCain-Feingold Act of prohibition against corporate advertising. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the Citizens United on the basis of free speech.[7] This case brought to the forefront discussion about whether or not First Amendment rights—free speech—apply to a corporation. In Justice Stevens' dissent he cited Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward (1819) in support of the argument that the First Amendment does not extend to corporations, with the exception of the "institutional press." Others, however, including Mark J. Fitzgibbons, a Virginia attorney writing in the American Thinker, argued that Stevens' reasoning contradicts the cited case. Fitzgibbons noted that "Justice Stevens' conclusion that the sovereign may interfere with First Amendment or other rights of privately founded and financed corporations because they are 'artificial' creations is not only absent in the Trustees of Dartmouth College decision, but it is contradictory to it."[8][9] IssuesTransparencyCritics of the Supreme Court's decision argue that the ruling allows "unlimited amounts of special interest money" in political campaigns. However, others contend that because federal disclosure requirements remain in place corporations will carefully "consider the reputational risks associated with electoral endeavors."[10] The court's ruling does not impact the requirement to report campaign contributions, therefore disclosure of corporation spending on political campaigns "will enable voters to draw appropriate conclusions."[6] Cato Institute researchers John Samples and Ilya Shapiro wrote that restrictions on advertising were based on the idea “that corporations had so much money that their spending would create vast inequalities in speech that would undermine democracy.” However, “to make campaign spending equal or nearly so, the government would have to force some people or groups to spend less than they wished. And equality of speech is inherently contrary to protecting speech from government restraint, which is ultimately the heart of American conceptions of free speech.”[11] Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, "With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide...citizens with the information needed to hold...elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters."[12] Personal PrivacyIn addition to the campaign finance ruling, the Supreme Court upheld current laws that require disclosure of political donors. However, some argue that the First Amendment documents the rights to both political speech and anonymity or personal privacy. Additionally, advocates for personal privacy argue that citizens have the right to "express themselves through donations and feel safe that their political speech will remain private."[12] According to some arguments, disclosure filings can lead to "harassment and intimidation" of donors.[13] At the time that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was decided, a notable case in the State of Washington was pending before the United States Supreme Court on the very issue of personal privacy, specifically on petition signature privacy. Donors of ballot measures both supporting and objecting to gay marriage or domestic partnership rights, for example, have claimed to have faced situations of harassment. An example of this was seen in Maine's 2009 Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto, Question 1 after a fundraising complaint was filed against the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM argued that their company policy is to collect funds and then submit the donations to a particular campaign so as to protect donors from harassment.[14] ReactionsPresident Barack Obama criticized the ruling, commenting that, "With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections.[15][16][17] The Wall Street Journal argued that Obama's statement about the Supreme Court decision allowing for "foreign corporations to spend without limit" was untrue.[18][19] Recent newsThis section links to a Google news search for the term "Citizens + United + v. + Federal Election Commission" See also
External links
Additional reading
Footnotes
What is the significance of the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v Federal Election Commission quizlet?Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions.
What did the Supreme Court state in Citizens United case?In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people and removed reasonable campaign contribution limits, allowing a small group of wealthy donors and special interests to use dark money to influence elections.
What did the Supreme Court rule in Citizens United 2010 quizlet?The Court ruled, 5-4, that the First Amendment prohibits limits on corporate funding of independent broadcasts in candidate elections.
|
The supreme court decision in citizens united v. federal election commission (2010)
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 de.ketajaman Inc.
