Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

The landmark Supreme Court decision that changes the landscape of voting

Origins about the case: Is a case dealing with the 1st amendment. The main idea of the case is about the regulation of campaign spending by corporations. Citizens United is suing FEC because of BCRA (which is bipartisan camping reform act). BCRA was attempting to regulate campaign contributions. The BCRA applied restrictions some of them were preventing corporations and labor unions from giving money from their general treasuries to broadcast. Other restrictions are that corporations have to reveal who they are with political ads, and a disclaimer when a political ad is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.

Citizen United’s Argument	FEC argument
The 1st Amendment was violated by saying corporations couldn’t give money from their general treasuries to broadcast ads. The restrictions of disclosure of donors and disclaimers (if candidate didn’t authorized ad) is unconstitutional	That no Constitutional right were being violated because McConnell v. FEC already set the precedent.

Begging the questions: 

·         Are corporation’s people?

·         Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell solved all constitutional challenges? 

·         Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements hinder an unconstitutional right of freedom of speech

The Decision:

5 votes for Citizens United, 4 votes against

What does this mean?

This court ruling will mean that corporations will now be able spend freely on political campaign ads. There will be no restrictions on them. Also corporations won't have to reveal who they are so they can give to money to candidates without anyone knowing who they are. 

(Citizens United v. FEC in a more entertainting way)

sources: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/publiced_preview_QandACitizens.html

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205