Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | US government and civics | Khan Academy | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

In the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that political spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions is protected under the First Amendment as free speech, sparking debates about the influence of corporations in elections.

Key Insights

• 🤑 The Citizens United case was not about whether corporations are considered people or whether money equals speech.
• 🗯️ The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Citizens United was a result of protecting corporations' First Amendment rights to engage in political expenditures.
• 😑 The decision created a distinction between press organizations and other corporations, with press organizations having certain exemptions.

Transcript

• [Sal] This is Sal here with Rick Hasen, who's a Professor of Law at UC Irvine School of Law, specializing in election law. I'm here with Bradley Smith, who's former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He's also a Professor of Law at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, and runs the Center for Competitive Politics. So, we're here to talk... Read More

Questions & Answers

Q: What was the main issue in the Citizens United case?

The main issue was whether corporations have a First Amendment right to spend money independently to support or oppose candidates for federal office.

Q: Did the Citizens United case address whether corporations are considered persons?

No, the case did not address the question of whether corporations are considered persons under the law. It focused on the First Amendment rights of corporations to engage in political spending.

Q: How did the McCain-Feingold Act lead to the Citizens United decision?

The McCain-Feingold Act attempted to restrict corporations and unions from mentioning a candidate in broadcast ads within a certain time frame before an election. Citizens United challenged this restriction, leading to the Supreme Court's decision.

Q: What was the rationale behind the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Citizens United?

The Supreme Court ruled that restricting political spending by corporations would infringe on their First Amendment rights to free speech. The court emphasized that the identity of the speaker does not matter in First Amendment cases.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The case revolved around the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, which aimed to regulate campaign financing by corporations and unions.

• Citizens United, an ideological nonprofit corporation, produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton and wanted it to be available as a video on demand through Comcast Cable.

• The Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, overturned the campaign financing restrictions, stating that corporations have a First Amendment right to engage in political expenditures independently.