Katie DolanAP GovernmentMs. BaxterCode 51. Case Name. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission2. Year Case Decided by Supreme Court. 20103. Facts that Triggered the Dispute. Citizens United produced a video known as Hillary: The Movie, detailing why Hillary Clinton would be a bad candidate for president. They filed an injunction against the Federal Elections Commission to prevent them from enforcing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which prevented corporations and other entities from spending money on electioneering communications (like commercials or in this case movies) with money directly from their treasury. 4. Statute. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 441b).5. Provision of the Constitution.  The First Amendment.6. Legal Question. Does the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act infringe upon the First Amendment right to free speech by preventing expenditures by corporations on electioneering communications? Should communications sponsored by companies and individuals be forced to disclose who those sponsors are?7. Outcome. 5 to 4 decision in favor of Citizens United.9. Legal Reasoning of the Majority. In the opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, he outlined all that was held by the court.

The Court first rejected the narrower view of Hilary: The Movie that was argued by Citizens United. Hilary was an electioneering communication as, despite the party’s claims, it would be viewed by a wide audience, it did give express advocacy to a specific candidate or group, and it had the potential to distort the public opinion towards a specific candidate. The Court could also not exempt Citizens United from U.S.C. 441 merely because they are a nonprofit. Had it found any of these grounds to warrant a narrower view of Hilary, the court would be “chilling free speech” (Citizens United).

The Court then analyzed free speech as applied to 441b. Under that law, while companies were not allowed to individually sponsor any sort of ad, they could form PACs to do so. However, despite their being allowed to sponsor ads through PACs, the regulations on PACs unfairly restrict the ability of many companies to be given their right to speech. Section 441b “necessarily reduces the quantity of expression” and is thereby establishing a practice in which “the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any point in the process” (Citizens United).

Since this is a case dealing with speech, the Court applied strict scrutiny in determining the constitutionality of the law. With regard to precedent, the Court has previously upheld that corporations are subject to First Amendment protections. Therefore, as section 441b provides a categorical discrimination of a certain body in its elimination of speech, it is unconstitutional. In reaching this conclusion the Court had to rectify pre-Austin views with post-Austin views. It proceeded to overturn both Austin and McConnell.

The Court finally held that the disclosure clause of section 441b was constitutional since it placed no ceiling on the quantity or quality of the speech as the spending ceiling had done.

10. Legal Doctrine.

Citizens United v. FEC affirmed the doctrine of corporate personhood by re-establishing the precedent that corporations have a First Amendment right to free speech.

The ruling also re-affirmed the practice of considering money as speech. 11. Other Points of View.Concurring opinion of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito:

This opinion first pointed out that the Government, in establishing such laws, was trying to put a damper on free speech everywhere by stifling the most significant tenant of free speech: political speech.

The primary focus of this opinion was how much weight to give a stare decisis view towards Austin and to a lesser degree, McConnell. The opinion spends a great deal of time lauding the role of stare decisis in the Court and explaining why Austin had not been overturned before. It concluded this discussion by saying that the principle of stare decisis does not prevent them from overturning prior rulings, it just is merely there to ensure that the Court does not erratically change things, but allows for a gradual progression. Thus, it was constitutionally sound to follow the reasoning in the majority opinion in overturning Austin and a portion of McConnell.

Concurring opinion of Justice Scalia who was joined by Justice Alito and Justice Thomas in part: This opinion was written to say that the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens was wrong. Justice Scalia said that Justice Stevens’ understanding of the framers’ intentions behind

the First Amendment was wrong. The rights of individual Englishmen to speak would not be nullified by their forming a group (as in a corporation) and speaking from that platform.

Dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens who was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor:

Justice Stevens et al. contended that since corporations are not people, they are not entitled to the same First Amendment rights (and constitutional rights in general) that citizens of the United States are given. As such, strict scrutiny is not the applicable level of review. The court needed to examine the law as was done in Austin at its face value. At this lower level of scrutiny, the law would be found to be facially constitutional.

Concurring and dissenting opinion in part of Justice Thomas: Justice Thomas agreed with the Courts majority reasoning on all of the issues except the

disclosure section of the law in question. Justice Thomas believes that since it is a restriction on free speech, and political speech no less, it is unconstitutional.

Works CitedCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission. No. 08-205. Supreme Court of the US. Print.

"Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission." Oyez. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d.

Web. 18 Mar. 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205#mla>.