What Are The Pros And Cons Of Citizens United Vs The Fec

In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was created to regulate the financing of political campaigns. According to the Federal Election Commission’s website, “the BCRA, and FEC rules, contain provisions related to television and radio ads that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and are distributed (targeted) to the relevant electorate within a particular time period before an election” ( Federal Election Commission, n.d.). These ads are defined as electioneering communications. Characteristics of electioneering communication are: the communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, the ad is publicly distributed on radio or television, the ad is distributed during a specific time period before

Citizens United is a non-profit corporation that at the time had a budget of 12 million-dollars. The documentary was originally released in theaters and later to DVD. Citizens United created three ads—two that were 10 seconds and one that was 30 seconds in an attempt to promote television viewers to order Hillary on-demand. In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Citizens United sued the FEC “challenging the constitutionality of a ban on corporate independent expenditures for electioneering communications” and whether or not the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s disclaimer, disclosure and reporting requirements are constitutional (Citizens United 2010). Originally, the case was presented in the district court where “the district court granted summary judgment for the FEC” (Citizens United 2010). Citizens United appealed the ruling and the case was presented to the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court held that the ban on corporate–funded independent expenditures under 441b could not be found inapplicable to the film, which was an

The First Amendment promises the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Citizens United felt that their First Amendment rights were being violated by the FEC because of the ban on independent expenditures—something that they saw as a form of speech. The FEC argued that the BCRA was valid because it assisted with preventing corruption and it protected corporation shareholders from funding corporate speech. While the points of the FEC could be considered valid, they do not negate the First Amendment law. The ruling of this case sets a precedent for media operations and corporations. It says that ultimately, both individuals and corporations are protected by the First Amendment and that they are entitled to freedom of