Citizens+United+v.+Federal+Elections+Commission

=**__Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commission__**= //Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009––Decided January 21, 2010 //

=**__The Two Sides__**=

that their mission is to restore citizen's control and to push American values. Their messages are very conservative and include pro-life beileifs and __republican__ views.
 * Citizens United:** Citizens United produces documentary movies and political messages independently. They say

= **Company? More like a federal organization.** = =__Case Summary__=
 * Federal Election Commision:** The Federal Election commision (FEC) is the regualtory agent that polices campaigning funds and enforces campaigning laws and regulations. The company has a very small authority over the election process, really only regulating funds and financial issues **.**

This case is considered to be a landmark one that deals directly with the First Amendment. This case is thought by many to be the most important and controversial that the Supreme Court ever ruled on. **(whoa! depends upon who you talk to).** This case became prominent when Citizens United planned to spend a large amount of money advertising a film that was considered to be negative towards Hillary Clinton. The Federal Election Commission got involved, and charged Citizens United with infringement of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. __Citizen’s united__ took the case to the D.C District Courts and argued that sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act were unconstitutional (Sections 201 and 203). In early court decisions, the FEC won over Citizens United because of previous rulings on similar cases, but the Supreme __court__ ruled the case differently because they thought that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was in violation of the First Amendment. In the end, it was determined that the government cannot control how much a corporation can spend in an election process.This case overruled two cases as well, Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell vs. FEC.

=__Documents and Amendments Relevant__=

The Bipartisan Campaign Act of 2002 (A.K.A McCain Feingold) was signed on __march__ 27, 2002. This act was set up to regulate campaigning processes specifically regarding finance through corporations. The main sections involved within this case were sections 201, 203 and 311. Section 201 states that if you spend upwards of $10,000 towards a campaign ad or something of that matter then you have to file a report with the FEC regarding the ad. Section 203 prohibits any corporations or labor unions from taking money out of their treasury funds to fund campaigning ads and things of that matter. Section 311 states that if you do put out a campaigning ad or something similar, you would have to specify where the funds were coming from to produce it. The First Amendment is also very important in this case, because the Supreme Court had to determine whether or not corporations should be allowed to spend their money in order to voice their opinions in an election process.

=__**The Main Issues**__=

During the 2008 prsidential campaign, Citizens United produced a documentary film called //Hillary The Movie// that criticized Hillary Clinton, and would consequently hurt her in the course of the election. The organization planned to air commercials to publicize the movie. The Federal Elections Committee intervened, and the case would then be taken to the District Court by Citizens United. The United States District Court of D.C ruled that Citizens United's advertisement was in direct violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. This act prohibited ads paid for by corporations or other corporate affiliated groups using corporate funds 30 days before a primary. The case would eventually become much larger, and Citizens United rewrote its appeal against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The new material that they would be arguing in front of the Supreme Court contained many attacks at the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The main points that Citizens United was going to be addressing were disclosure requirements, direct contribution to candidates from corporations, and most importantly the amount of money that could be spent by corporations in the election process. **(in your own words, what does this mean?)** = = =__Decision__=

= = ====The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, voted that since corporations are technically people it would be unconstitutional if they were not allowed freedom of speech in the election process. This ruling has been called the most important, and most controversial to ever be decided by the Supreme Court. The majority, who voted in favor of having no restrictions of government spending on the election process, stated that the reason for their vote was that political speech is indispensable in a democracy, and that by banning corporations from voicing their opinions they would be in direct violation of the First Amendment. The majority decided that The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's terms in accordance to, //The Movie// were constitutional, this was justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about the credibility of a candidate. The Court also decided that political advertising sponsors still have to meet disclosure requirements and corporations and unions still cannot directly fund candidates.====

**awesome cartoon!**

=__Judges and their Votes__=

==

Antonin Scalia (1986–present) John Roberts (2005–present) Anthony Kennedy (1988–present) Clarence Thomas (1991–present) Samuel Alito (2006–present)
 * Majority**

These justices voted in favor of Citizens United, because they thought that it would be unconstitutional if corporations did not have the right to express "themselves" in the election process. **Explain how they equated corporations = people.**

John Stevens (1975–2010) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993–present) Stephen Brayer (1994–present) Sonia Sotomayor (2009–present)
 * Dissenting**

These justices thought that it was not okay for corporations to be allowed to spend freely in the election process **Why not?**

__**John Roberts-Chief Justice**__
John Roberts is the 17th Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States. He was nominated by George W. Bush initially to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, but when Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away, Bush re-nominated him as a replacement for Rehnquist. Roberts grew up in Indiana, and after graduating at the top of his class, he went on to attend Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Prior to being on the Supreme Court, Roberts worked in the Attorney General's office during the Reagan Administration, and then he worked for the George H. W. Bush Administration in the Department of Justice and Office of the White House Counsel. After his time in George H. W. Bush's Administration, Roberts spent 14 years in private practice, where he argued 39 cases in front of the Supreme Court. Robert's last job before his current one on the Supreme Court was as a judge on the D.C. Circuit. = = = = =__Personal Opinions__=

We believe that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision on this particular case. It is our belief that corporations are not really people, so they shouldn't get the same rights as individuals. With this decision, the election process will be substantially different than it has been in the past, because now corporations can not only spend limitless amounts of money supporting candidates that are best for them, but it also doesn't stop corporations from using front companies in order to hide their identities. Even though the Supreme Court said that companies involved must be disclosed, there is nothing in any of their rulings against dealing behind a front company. A great example of this can be seen in Minnesota, where Target is giving money to a company called Minnesota Forward, and then this company is coming out with advertisements that are aimed at getting a Republican, who would be beneficial to Target, elected. Another issue with this ruling that really disturbs both of us is the fact that corporations can essentially render individual donations useless. It is estimated that single corporations have the ability to donate more in support of a candidate than the entire population could if put together. Another astounding fact is that 85% of Americans already believe that corporations have too much control over the election process, and by voting for Citizens United, the Supreme Court has given them truly unlimited power. We live in a country where decisions are supposed to be made by the people, and it strikes us as extremely unsettling that the Supreme Court would take power away from the people and put it into the hands of many greedy businessmen and their corporations. **great analysis**



=__What If?__=

If this case didn't happen then elections would be a lot fairer today. This case opened a gateway to corporations and other organizations to lobby for the election of the party and runner that they prefer. Elections would be more civil if this case was nonexistant or favored the other side. Corporations now have free reign within elections to spend as much money as they want to support or to discredit runners. Elections would be more about the people and focus on their opinion and not have corporations running the show. The allowment of corporations and other organizations to spend as much money as they want on elections makes the whole process a commercial issue instead of focusing on the real issues and views of the runners and the people. = = =__Bibliography__=


 * Engrossed Bill of Rights, September 25, 1789; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.
 * ** __C__ ** __ITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION__. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 11 February 2012.<__http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205__>.
 * Wittaker, L. Paige. "(CRS Report) Analysis of Supreme Court Opinion on Corporate Political Speech." //Aip News//. 26 Jan. 2010. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
 * 4. "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Frequently Asked Questions-Common Cause." //Common Cause-Common Cause //. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. .

Article By: Alex Lurz and Cory Shanbom = = = **6/7 Biblio - alphabetical?** = **26/28 Content - great job looking at the issues, but more on the judges' decisions.** **4/5 Organization - good use of cartoons, but make sure it's in order.**

**36/40 total** = =

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =