Difference between revisions of "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"
(Begin page on this important case currently before SCOTUS) |
(The case has been decided) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission''' is a 2009-2010 case | + | '''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission''' is a 2009-2010 case in which the [[United States Supreme Court]] overturned significant parts of the [[McCain-Feingold]] Act restricting campaign finance contributions, saying it violated the [[First Amendment]]. While the Supreme Court agreed to an unusually early fall sitting so it could decide the case before the 2010 primary elections, it finally released the opinion on January 21, 2010 - an almost unprecedented delay<ref>http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/so-where-are-the-argued-supreme-court-opinions-part-iii/</ref>. |
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
In 2008, Citizens United produced a television documentary attacking [[Hillary Clinton]], then a candidate for President. It wanted to pay a [[video on demand]] service to make the documentary available during the primary election season; however, this was considered illegal under the [[McCain-Feingold]] campaign finance act. The group sued, arguing both that McCain-Feingold does not apply to video-on-demand services and that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2221753/</ref>. | In 2008, Citizens United produced a television documentary attacking [[Hillary Clinton]], then a candidate for President. It wanted to pay a [[video on demand]] service to make the documentary available during the primary election season; however, this was considered illegal under the [[McCain-Feingold]] campaign finance act. The group sued, arguing both that McCain-Feingold does not apply to video-on-demand services and that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2221753/</ref>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Decision== | ||
| + | Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] wrote the opinion of the court, overturning the broad corporate financing ban but upholding limited disclosure requirements<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/campaign-disclosure-rules-upheld/</ref>. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] and Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote two separate concurring opinions, and Justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[John Paul Stephens]] dissented.<ref>http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/citizens-united/</ref><ref>[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf Full text of all opinions] (PDF, 183 pages)</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 16:45, January 21, 2010
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a 2009-2010 case in which the United States Supreme Court overturned significant parts of the McCain-Feingold Act restricting campaign finance contributions, saying it violated the First Amendment. While the Supreme Court agreed to an unusually early fall sitting so it could decide the case before the 2010 primary elections, it finally released the opinion on January 21, 2010 - an almost unprecedented delay[1].
Background
In 2008, Citizens United produced a television documentary attacking Hillary Clinton, then a candidate for President. It wanted to pay a video on demand service to make the documentary available during the primary election season; however, this was considered illegal under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act. The group sued, arguing both that McCain-Feingold does not apply to video-on-demand services and that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional[2].
Decision
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court, overturning the broad corporate financing ban but upholding limited disclosure requirements[3].
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia wrote two separate concurring opinions, and Justices Clarence Thomas and John Paul Stephens dissented.[4][5]
References
- List of briefs, from Scotusblog.com
- Transcript of oral argument