Citizens United v. FEC | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Citizens United v. FEC was a Supreme Court case surrounding campaign finance and corporate involvement in politics. The Federal Election Commission was created in 1971 and greatly regulated the amount of campaign finance political candidates were able to receive. By 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act) restricted organizations from financing issue-based advertisements on behalf of candidates. Citizens United released a million dollar ad against Hillary Clinton. Before the film aired, Citizens United challenged the McCain-Feingold Act, stating that money was a form of Free Speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional, but stated that corporations still cannot give money directly to political candidates.
0:02 Money in politics tends to ruffle the feathers of many Americans.
0:05 And nowhere is it as controversial as it
0:07 has been with corporate involvement in politics.
0:10 Some have argued that corporations should have no role whatsoever in politics,
0:14 while others have felt that a corporation also has protected First Amendment rights.
0:19 Of course, the First Amendment states
0:21 congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
0:26 So is the speech of a corporation protected?
0:29 The landmark Supreme Court case, Citizens United versus the FEC weighed
0:34 in on these debates as well as its ramifications.
0:37 And to understand Citizens United versus the FEC, it’s necessary for us
0:41 to understand a brief history of campaign finance regulation.
0:45 From 1970, Congress passed numerous pieces of legislation to limit campaign spending.
0:51 This included limitations on corporate,
0:54 union and federal employee involvement in campaign funding.
0:57 In 1971, Congress further restricted
1:00 campaign finances by passing the Federal Elections Campaign Act,
1:04 or FECA, which strengthened the requirements for politicians
1:07 to publicly report their campaign finances and added limits to the amount of money
1:11 individuals or groups could donate to candidates.
1:14 It also led to the creation
1:16 of the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, to police campaign spending.
1:20 The trend toward limiting campaign spending took a turn when
1:23 the Supreme Court struck down part of the FECA in the 1976 case of Buckley v.
1:29 Valeo by ruling that restricting independent spending by individuals
1:33 and groups was a violation of free speech under the First Amendment.
1:37 Still, in 2002, more campaign regulation came as the Bipartisan Campaign Finance
1:43 Reform Act, or McCain Feingold Act restricted corporations or labor
1:47 organizations from financing issue based advertising on behalf of candidates.
1:52 These are also known as electioneering communications.
1:56 This brings us to the heated 2008 presidential election and Democratic
2:01 primary that pitted Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama against each other
2:04 in a tight race to see who would be the Democratic nominee for president.
2:08 Citizens United.
2:09 A nonprofit organization which receives
2:12 money from private individuals as well as some corporations.
2:15 Released a film which was highly critical
2:17 of Hillary Clinton and spent over a million dollars doing so.
2:20 As Citizens United understood the movie
2:23 could be considered electioneering communications,
2:26 they challenged the McCain Feingold Act before the movie aired,
2:29 arguing that its provision on electioneering communications violated
2:33 the First Amendment protections of free speech.
2:35 Because of the ongoing debate about money
2:37 and politics, the case went before the Supreme Court in 2010.
2:42 In a five to four decision,
2:43 the Supreme Court ruled that the McCain Feinold Acts ban
2:46 on corporate and union expenditures was unconstitutional because it violated
2:51 freedom of speech, the opinion for the Court said.
2:54 Were the Court to uphold these
2:55 restrictions, the government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any
3:00 of the various points in the speech process.
3:02 In the end, the decision allows corporations
3:05 and unions to spend unlimited sums of money on ads and other political tools.
3:10 These are often described as soft money within politics, as the money spent is not
3:15 going directly to a political candidate, but helps that campaign indirectly.
3:19 It is, however,
3:20 still illegal for corporations and unions to donate directly to a campaign.
3:25 The debate continues to rage on to this day, and much controversy continues
3:29 surrounding the role of corporations and money in politics.
3:33 As this case and many others show,
3:35 a Supreme Court decision rarely settles a controversy in the public’s mind.
3:39 For more information on this and many other important court cases throughout
3:43 history, be sure to check out the and other videos in our Homework Help series.