Citizens United

Citizens United v. FEC (Amicus Brief)
In a sweeping regulation of political speech, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, banned so-called “electioneering communications”—corporate or union-funded broadcast ads that mentioned the name of a federal candidate shortly before an election.  Using this law, the Federal Election Commission banned the nonprofit Citizens United from airing Hillary:  The Movie on cable TV and required the group to “name names” by disclosing to the government detailed personal information about the film’s backers if the group ran any television ads to promote the film.

Citizens United, rather than remain silent, chose to challenge the FEC’s application of the law.  IJ in turn submitted two amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court to support the group.  In its first brief, IJ demonstrated how government-forced disclosure of political activity burdens citizen groups with needless red tape, chills speech and violates privacy while providing little if any benefits to voters.  In its second brief, submitted after the Supreme Court took the unusual step of ordering the parties to submit supplemental briefing, argues that the Court should return to first principles and overturn two previous decisions that gave the FEC the power to censor corporate-funded electoral advocacy, such as advertisements, films, and even books. 

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United and held that the government had no business dictating which groups may speak and which may not.  The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy was a tour de force for the First Amendment.  After noting that “[s]peech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content,” the Court went on to hold that

When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

IJ has been at the forefront of defending this free-speech victory from those who have called it “activist,” that the decision will let “corporations buy elections” and that it is the worst opinion since Dred Scot.  And IJ’s work in one of its own cases, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission , has dramatically expanded the reach of the Court’s ruling and ensured that thousands of independent groups nationwide may speak freely.
 
 

 

 

 

Essential Background

Images

Latest Release: Senators Serve Up More Citizens United Myths (March 9, 2010)

Client Photo - none available

Video - Three reasons Not To Sweat The "Citizens United" SCOTUS Ruling by Reason.tv


Legal Briefs and Decisions

Download: U.S. Supreme Court Decision (January 21, 2010)

Download: Institute for Justice Supreme Court Amicus on re-argument (July 2009)

 

Download: Institute for Justice Supreme Court Amicus (January 2009)

Case Timeline

Oral Argument:

 

Supreme Court Oral Argument: September 9, 2009

 Decision(s): Download: U.S. Supreme Court Decision (January 21, 2010)

Next Key Date:

 

 

 

Additional Releases

Maps, Charts and Facts

Release: Dispelling the Top Five Citizens United Decision Myths (January 26, 2010)
 
Release:  U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech In Citizens United Case (January 21, 2010)  Report: Locking Up Political Speech
How Electioneering Communications Laws Stifle Free Speech and Civic Engagement
Release:  U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Free Speech In Citizens United Case (September 9, 2009

Report: Campaign Finance Red Tape:Strangling Free Speech and Political Debate

Release: Could These Books Be Banned? (September 2, 2009) Report: Disclosure Costs: Unintended Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform

 

Release: Today’s Free Speech, Tomorrow’s Campaign-Finance “Loophole” (July 31, 2009)

 

Release: First Amendment Blockbuster at the Supreme Court; Court Orders New Arguments in Citizens United, Majority Appears Poised to Strike Down Electioneering Communications and Corporate Speech Bans (June 29, 2009)  


 

Release: Government Asked If It Can Ban Books and Doesn't Answer "No" (March 24, 2009)

 

Release: Must Moviemakers Name Names of Financial Backers? (March 17, 2009)

Op-eds, News Articles and Links

Article: Campaign Finance: IJ’s Long Term Investment Pays Off; Liberty & Law (August 2010)

Video: MUST WATCH: Citizens United Debate Trailer; (July 16, 2010)

Video: IJ's Steve Simpson Discusses Landmark 1st Amendment Decision on PBS NewsHour With Jim Lehrer; PBS (January 29, 2010)

Article: Free Speech Blockbuster at the U.S. Supreme Court Liberty & Law (October 2009)

YouTube: Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission



Email Address
Please enter a valid email address
Share

Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Tel 703.682.9320, Fax 703.682.9321
© 1997-2014