Talk:Citizens United v. FEC

Potential Sources for Citizens United v FEC.
Tuk28507 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

23. article says decision was 5-4. but part D was 8-1
parts A B C and E of the opinion were 5-4, and expand freedom of speech. part D was 8-1, and purports to narrow it, by upholding the disclosure and disclaimer provisions. previously, the court has distinuished between the two, and often upheld disclosures but always found disclaimer reguation unconstitutional censorship. so this passage has confused lower courts ever since, and continues to be controversial. subsequent cases such as reed v town of gilbert and beccerra and janus show that the court was not giving up its opposition to micromanagement of poltical speech by allowing 'paid for by' type disclaimer regulations. but lower courts are still pointing to this passage as authority.

what actually happened was that plaintiff's complaint, as drafted by james bopp, made an argument that the speech was not express advocacy, and therefore didn't need a disclaimer or disclosure. the court found the speech was express advocacy or its equivaent, so the argument lost. the rest of section D is dicta, not holding. but it continues to confuse lower courts,and the supreme court has not clarified the issue.

the wikipedia article should be changed to clarify that section D was 8-1, not 5-4, and that its meaning remains obscure and controversial.

50.90.158.23 (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)robbin stewart gtbear at gmail

2021 addition:

"The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers" i didn't go look it up, but i doubt this part was based on the press clause. more likely a political association claim, which is based on the petition clause. so citiation needed to the text if it's right. 2601:48:C601:50E0:50AC:9458:DBB0:53E (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)gtbear at gmail

Part IV?
What is it? The article does not use "part IV" anywhere else in the article that I can find. A breadcrumb is probably in order.71.222.182.189 (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Advertising the film was not prohibited under BCRA
The false claims in question: "Advertising the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" in the Introduction section and "The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts" in the Case summary section.

The District Court's actual decision clearly stated that the FEC already exempted the advertisements under safe harbor protections (but disclosure/disclaimer requirements still apply):

"Citizens’ proposed advertisements present a different picture. The FEC agrees that Citizens may broadcast the advertisements because they fall within the safe harbor of the FEC’s prohibition regulations implementing WRTL. They did not advocate Senator Clinton’s election or defeat; instead, they proposed a commercial transaction—buy the DVD of The Movie. See WRTL, 127 S. Ct. at 2667; 11 C.F.R. § 114.15(b). Although Citizens may therefore run the advertisements, it complains that requirements of § 201 and § 311 of BCRA, 2 U.S.C. §§ 434(f)(2), 441d, impose on it burdens that violate the First Amendment."

Source: page 10 of Memorandum Opinion dated 01/15/2008 which can be accessed here https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/citizens_united_memo_opinion_pi.pdf or via the FEC's website here https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/#:%7E:text=Federal%20Election%20Commission%20that%20held,the%20ban%20on%20corporate%20contributions

The District Court's decision also notes that Citizens United first complaint was "that § 203's prohibition of corporate disbursements for electioneering communications violates the First Amendment on its face and as applied to The Movie and to the 30-second advertisement “Questions”9". Footnote 9, however, explicitly states: "Plaintiff’s challenge regarding the prohibition of “Questions” will be denied as moot. The FEC, in its filings and at oral argument, conceded that the advertisement is exempt from the Prohibition. (Opp’n to 2d Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 17.)"

Source: ibid, page 5.

After the District Court's decision on this matter, the question of whether the advertisements were prohibited under 2 U. S. C. §441b was not argued again. Indeed, the Supreme Court decision clearly states:

"Citizens United sought to broadcast one 30-second and two 10-second ads to promote Hillary. Under FEC regulations, a communication that “[p]roposes a commercial transaction” was not subject to 2 U. S. C. §441b’s restrictions on corporate or union funding of electioneering communications. 11 CFR §114.15(b)(3)(ii). The regulations, however, do not exempt those communications from the disclaimer and disclosure requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311. See 72 Fed. Reg. 72901 (2007)."

Source: page 52 (or the first paragraph of section 4B) of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Instead, the question that remained regarding the advertisements for the movie were whether or not disclosure and disclaimer regulations applied to them. Consequently, I will be editing the article in accordance with these facts. Nome379 (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation for Class
'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

This article is extremely well-balanced, especially with regards to the public reaction following Citizens United. The article included statements from those who supported and opposed the decision as well as presented the opinions of businesses, the public (through polls), well-known individuals, those who held governmental positions at the time. Jaaason.li (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics
— Assignment last updated by Aaroncohenoc (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)