Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
| Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated March 24, 2009 and September 9, 2009 |
||||
| Decided January 21, 2010 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Certiorari to clarify the question of whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 stipulated funding restrictions and disclosure obligations for companies (including non-profit organizations ) or unions that finance TV productions to influence the election campaign are constitutional. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| The issuance of funds for the purpose of political influence by companies (including non-profit organizations ) and trade unions is a form of political speech and therefore cannot be limited by the state, provided that the respective organization is independent of the election campaign organization of the candidates standing for election. The relevant provisions of the BCRA are unconstitutional. However, direct donations to candidates for election remain prohibited. The disclosure obligations stipulated in the BCRA regarding the origin of the funds can be justified in the public interest due to the need for information of the electorate and are therefore permitted. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| 1. Amendment to the United States Constitution |
Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission was a case negotiated by the United States Supreme Court in 2009/2010 to determine whether statutory disclosure requirements and funding restrictions on the activities of companies (including non-profit organizations ) and trade unions aimed at influencing elections were constitutional.
background
The non-profit organization Citizens United , which is affiliated with conservative circles, produced a documentary about the then favored candidate of the Democratic Party Hillary Clinton ( Hillary: The Movie ) shortly before the primaries for the US presidential election campaign in 2008 and planned to publish it as video-on-demand via a US cable broadcaster. The documentation does not give a recommendation for a choice, but Clinton was presented largely negatively in the program. Due to its political nature and its proximity to the primaries, the program fell within the scope of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002, which allows companies (including non-profit organizations) and trade unions to finance TV programs Influencing the election campaign is prohibited. The Supreme Court upheld this prohibition in the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission found lawful in 2003.
As a result, Citizens United failed in a district court to file an injunction against the Federal Election Commission , which would have allowed the documentation to be published. However, the organization appealed the decision. The special legal circumstances allowed a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court . He accepted the appeal for a decision and negotiated the case in two meetings in March and September 2009.
judgment
The Supreme Court ruled on January 21, 2010 with a majority of 5 of the 9 judges' votes that the financing of TV programs to influence election campaigns by companies (including non-profit organizations) and trade unions should be classified as a political speech and therefore in the The scope of protection of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution falls. The BCRA's funding restrictions for such programs are therefore generally unconstitutional if the organization acts independently of the candidates standing for election. The earlier decision in the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission was thereby repealed. The direct transfer of funds or the coordination of programs with candidates for election remains prohibited. However, the disclosure obligations stipulated in the BCRA regarding the origin of financial sources for TV programs to influence election campaigns are in the public interest and are constitutional.
The dissenting opinion shared by the four judges, who were considered to be liberal, agreed with the constitutional conformity of the disclosure obligations, but sharply criticized the lifting of the funding restrictions. The court thus enables uncontrolled election advertising by companies and trade unions. The direct financing of political advertising for candidates remains forbidden, but the indirect support of an election campaign through financial resources from commercial and non-commercial organizations, which is now permissible according to the judgment, leaves considerable room for corruption and the demands or expectations of political consideration by the candidates ( Quid pro quo ). In addition, democracy would be damaged if the population had the mere appearance that the money of big companies was crucial for voting. This creates the risk that the people's trust in democracy will be destroyed.
Quote
" While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics. "
“ If American democracy is imperfect, few apart from the majority of this court would have thought that its mistakes included a lack of economic money in politics. "
literature
- Jane Mayer: Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. Doubleday, New York 2016, ISBN 978-0-3855-3559-5 . Cape. 9 and 10, pp. 226-267. (Describes the context, especially the history and consequences.)
Web links
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, hearing
- Matt Baj: How much has Citizens United changed the political game? The New York Times Magazine, July 17, 2012.
- Bob Biersack: 8 years later: How Citizens United changed campaign finance. OpenSecrets.org, February 7, 2018.
- John Dunbar: The 'Citizens United' decision and why it matters. The Center for Public Integrity, October 18, 2012.
Individual evidence
- ^ John Paul Stevens, January 21, 2010: Dissenting opinion: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , accessed March 1, 2018.