Only $35.99/year

Terms in this set (15)

Petitioner: Citizens United
Respondent: Federal Election Commission
Argued Date: Mar 24, 2009, Sep 9, 2009
Decided Date: Jan 21, 2010
Summary of the Facts of the Case: the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." 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 such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support. Citizens United argued that Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances.
Questions: Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional? Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"? If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA? Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?
How the vote turned out: 5 for; 4 against
Summary of Conclusion: the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. ... The Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Court's ruling did not affect the ban on corporate contributions.