![]() In reconsidering Austin, the Court found that the justifications that supported the restrictions on corporate expenditures are not compelling. According to the Court, prior to Austin there was a line of precedent forbidding speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity, and after Austin there was a line permitting them. The Court noted that §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures and electioneering communications is a ban on speech and "political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence." Accordingly, laws that burden political speech are subject to "strict scrutiny," which requires the government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Instead, the Court found that, in exercise of its judicial responsibility, it was required to consider the facial validity of the Act’s ban on corporate expenditures and reconsider the continuing effect of the type of speech prohibition which the Court previously upheld in Austin. The Supreme Court found that resolving the question of whether the ban in §441b specifically applied to the film based on the narrow grounds put forth by Citizens United would have the overall effect of chilling political speech central to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in the case. The District Court denied Citizens United a preliminary injunction and granted the Commission’s motion for summary judgment. ![]() §441b was unconstitutional as applied to the film and that disclosure and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the film and the three ads for the movie. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the ban on corporate electioneering communications at 2 U.S.C. Citizens United sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commission in the U.S. Citizens United planned to make the film available within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections, but feared that the film would be covered by the Act’s ban on corporate-funded electioneering communications that are the functional equivalent of express advocacy, thus subjecting the corporation to civil and criminal penalties. Citizens United wanted to pay cable companies to make the film available for free through video-on-demand, which allows digital cable subscribers to select programming from various menus, including movies. In January 2008, Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, released a film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate in the Democratic Party’s 2008 Presidential primary elections. An electioneering communication is generally defined as "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication" that is "publicly distributed" and refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The Federal Election Campaign Act ("the Act") prohibits corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to make electioneering communications or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate. The Court’s ruling did not affect the ban on corporate contributions. The Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. Federal Election Commission that held that corporations could be banned from making electioneering communications. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce ( Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. ![]() ![]() Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |