Citizens United

Bus 303 – Group R:

Luke Genereux, Elvin Li, Selma Duric, Jiajun Liang, Thera Chow, Jennifer Gutzmann

Today’s Presentation

Electioneering Communication S441B

• Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)• Corporations and unions cannot spend their money

on election-related communications which promote or put down a candidate.– This includes broadcast, cable, or satellite communications– It refers to a specific candidate running for federal office– It is within 30 days of election time– It is publicly distributed

1st Amendment

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Overview• Citizens United released a

documentary critical of Hillary Clinton– Available as video-on-demand

• They wouldn’t come across it channel surfing– Non-profit – It was to be shown within 30 days of

elections• Citizens United argued that this ban

should not apply to their documentary, as it would be unconstitutional.

Citizens United• Citizens United first argued on narrower grounds

that S441B might not even apply– The documentary was not an “electioneering

communication”– Therefore, applying the rules prohibiting this speech

would be unconstitutional– The documentary does not explicitly solicit votes

against Hillary Clinton– S441B should not apply to these video-on-demand movies,

and should have an exception for non-profit corporate speech funded by individuals

Citizens United

– Citizens United is largely (but not completely) funded by individual donations. Therefore, they’re not using private corporate expenditures.

• Citizens United then argued on broader grounds– Government (FEC) is violating the 1st amendment rights

of corporations to free speech• To resolve the case, they were looking to the

ruling about suppression of speech– the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of

Commerce

Verdict

• S441B is overruled, so corporate individual expenditures can’t be limited

• (a) the constitution said that government would not ban speech, but 441B is a ban on speech.

• (b) the courts recognize that the first amendment applies to corporations So corporations are not vastly different from individuals under the law and morality?

Implications• You can’t fine or jail an individual (or association of

individuals) for engaging in political speech, but 441B would let the government fine or jail individuals in association with corporations.

• The government’s reasoning is flawed.

• All the reasons and problems point to abandoning 441B. It is no longer up-to-date, and there are many ways around it.

Stakeholders

• Citizens United• General Public• Government• FEC• Hillary Clinton

Ethical Issues

• How does this affect the right to free speech? • Should it apply consistently to corporations

the same as individuals, or should different types of corporations and situations should have different rules?

• What are the boundaries on speech prior to an election?

Ethical Issues

• Utilitarain Approach: a particular action is right or wrong based upon the consequences of the action

• Deontological Approach: actions are morally right or wrong independent of consequences (rule-based)

Ethical Issues

• Moral Pluralism and the Law:A diversity of moral principles of what is “right” or “wrong”

Should we equate the legal with the ethical?

Our Evaluation of Alternatives

1) Get rid of 441B and support the Supreme Court Decision

2) Keep 441B and limit the rights of corporations

3) Revise 441B to make it more clear, up-to-date, and all-encompassing

Choice of Alternative

2

Uphold S441B – Limit Expenditure

Questions? Comments?