what is citizen united v. federal election commission?

Question

what was it about? what did it involve? what was the ruling of it?

and can you share your opinion about it?

Answer 1

Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.



Judgment: REVERSED, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy on January 21, 2010. in a 5-4 decision with an opinion written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor





*My opinion on it is that it changes nothing. If you look at the original holding, all that it prevented corporations and unions from doing was DIRECTLY contributing. They did and still do by way of outside PACs and bundling committees. Really what this did is allow unions and corporations to openly contribute instead of being shady about it. I don't agree with the manner in which unions contribute--against the members' will with their dues. As for corporations, if you aren't personally paying the fee, then it is what it is.

Answer 2

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), also at 130 S. Ct. 876 and 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (the unofficial and lawyers' edition citations), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.[2]

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3]

The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” [2] An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate

Answer 3

The Citizen's United ruling declared that corporations have the freedom to run as many political advertisements as they want, at any expense, and with no oversight. It was based on a movie that was made about Hillary Clinton before the 2008 primaries and the court ruled in favor of business over regulation. It effectively opened the floodgates for corporate money to influence elections with no oversight (companies don't even need to disclose their funding of an advertisement). I think it will hurt our system and ultimately detracts from the voice of individuals by flooding the market with the voices of the rich. However, it is constitutionally founded and the only way around it would be to enact legislation that prevents lawmakers from accepting the money (a constitutionally valid, but highly unlikely prospect).

Answer 4

It's about a Hilary Clinton smear movie. The results from the case are now, special interests can spend as much money as they want on elections without disclosing who they are. Our country has been purchased.