Uncertain Justice Questions

Uncertain Justice Questions

Before reading this, I knew nothing about the Citizens United Case.

This chapter gave me a lot of new information about the case. I learned that the case came to fruition because of the fight by the Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to its film. Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television to sway opinions. The BCRA regulates electioneering communication and section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to that communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it is to support. When the case first got to the court, Citizens United argued that the movie wasn't a prohibited electioneering communication because it didn't expressly urge viewers to vote against Clinton. The case was more concerned with the more omnipresent implications on the government’s power over campaign speech. As the case developed, Citizens United argued that Section 203 violates the First Amendment when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. By the time the case ended the court had decided to deny the injunction. It was determined that section 203 was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already decided that. The Court also decided that The Movie was the equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional when applied to the The Movie. The court also decided that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause.”

The majority vote held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Candidates can spend as much money as they please on getting their name out there. Only a Few topics entertain Kennedy more than the First Amendment. He presented an opinion getting rid of the value of expression in the case. He warned against well intentioned government censorship. He wrote that corruption consists of quid pro