The Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark case concerning the restrictions of corporate spending in elections. Citizens United is a Conservative non-profit organization that promotes its agenda by making documentaries and tv commercials. In 2008, Citizens United produced a documentary called Hillary:The Movie attempting to expose Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s past. The movie was planned to be made available on Video on Demand before the primaries in 2008. However, this went against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) that prohibits “electioneering communication” against “a clearly identified candidate for Federal office”. “Electioneering Communication” refers to “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that is “made within […] 30 days before a primary”. Citizens United pursued an injunction to challenge the Federal Election Commission in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. They argued that sections 201 and 203 of
…show more content…
FEC, “the court opened the campaign spending floodgates” (Levy). There are now no limits to how much that corporations can donate, and much of the money has been going to super PACs. Those opposed to the decision argue that corporate donations take away the votes of individuals. Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been criticizing the ruling as part of their campaigns. Sanders even claimed that he would “have a litmus test” when choosing a nominee for a Supreme Court justice. He added, “And that nominee will say that they are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision” (Collins). Supporters of the decision believe that the First Amendment gives freedom of speech to all, including corporations. Either way, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission has made campaign contributions skyrocket and it will undoubtedly affect next year’s Presidential
FEC, “the court opened the campaign spending floodgates” (Levy). There are now no limits to how much that corporations can donate, and much of the money has been going to super PACs. Those opposed to the decision argue that corporate donations take away the votes of individuals. Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been criticizing the ruling as part of their campaigns. Sanders even claimed that he would “have a litmus test” when choosing a nominee for a Supreme Court justice. He added, “And that nominee will say that they are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision” (Collins). Supporters of the decision believe that the First Amendment gives freedom of speech to all, including corporations. Either way, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission has made campaign contributions skyrocket and it will undoubtedly affect next year’s Presidential