Talk:Citizens United v. FEC

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by M.boli (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 2 February 2024 (Revert non-constructive comment. Remove ref tags from a earlier comment so the references are displayed within the body of the same comment .). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 20:01, 2 February 2024 by M.boli (talk | contribs) (Revert non-constructive comment. Remove ref tags from a earlier comment so the references are displayed within the body of the same comment .)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

Murray Hill Incorporated was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 February 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Citizens United v. FEC. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech High‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving Citizens United v. FEC was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 January 2010.

Misplaced Pages

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Potential Sources for Citizens United v FEC.

Epstein, Richard A. (2011). "Citizens United v. FEC: the constitutional right that big corporations should have but do not want". Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 34 (2): 639+. doi:A257217068. Retrieved 3 October 2023. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Unknown parameter |A257217068&v= ignored (help)

"Citizens United v. FEC: corporate political speech". Harvard Law Review. 124 (1): 75+. November 2010. doi:A245302603. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Unknown parameter |A245302603&v= ignored (help)

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 “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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tuk28507 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Aaroncohenoc.

— Assignment last updated by Aaroncohenoc (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Categories: