1. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (FEC), 2010
A quick overview

2. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 2002 (BCRA)
Corporations and unions cannot spend their money on election-related communications which promote or condemn a candidate.
This includes broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that:
refers to a specific candidate running for federal office
is within 30 days of election time
is publicly distributed
something about the case being based on the previous ruling that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity
30 DAYS ELECTION
-The law prohibits electioneering within 30 days of a primary election (this is when a party like the democratic party elects their leader) and 60 days of a general election (this is when the general eligible population votes).
-In this case it was a primary election.

3. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of every American to speak out.
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .”
Introduce with 1st amendment

4. Overview
Citizens United (a non-profit organization) released a documentary (“Hilary: The Movie”) critical of Hillary Clinton on the basis of freedom of speech.
On Direct TV (video on-demand)
It was to be shown within 30 days of primary election
The District Court ruled that the film was a prohibited electioneering communication
Citizens United argued that Government (FEC) is violating the 1st amendment rights of corporations to free speech (regulating political speech)
The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court

5. Citizens United: Decision
Argument of whether or not corporations have the rights of individuals in the matter of free speech
5-4 vote in favor of Citizens United
Determined that citizens and corporations have a First Amendment free speech right to make independent campaign expenditures, just as individuals do.
The majority emphasized its view that free speech rights do not depend on the identity of the speaker – whether corporate or individual.
Citizens United claims that the FEC is violating its right to free speech
Speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, any speech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled.

6. Do corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as “real” persons?
Yes: Corporations are associations of individuals and are entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals.
Any legislation that affects the political process should be “suspect”.
No: The side with more money should not dominate the political process by being able to out-contribute the opponents (not a level playing field)
1st Amendment rights are for “real” persons, not “artificial” persons created the by State

7. Downfalls
This allows people like George Soros and the Koch Brothers to influence government even more just by pulling out their wallet.
Citizens United claims that the FEC is violating its right to free speech
Speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, any speech arguably within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled.

8. Arguments in Favor of Unlimited Campaign Spending
Money allows the funding of modern communications, which is essential to reach voters.
Political communication informs the voters.
Government should not regulate political speech, which is basic in a democracy.
Just because a candidate takes contributions does not mean that as an elected official s/he will do favors for the contributor—particularly if the spending is “independent.”

9. Opponents of Unlimited Money Say . . .
Growing cynicism among the US population based on the idea that democracy is now for sale,
The large amounts of money spent on campaigns make Congress dependent on these dollars and responsive to their contributors and less likely to listen to "the people" – whom the Founders meant Congress to represent.
In a study at UC Berkeley, when someone seeking a meeting with a member of Congress was explicitly revealed to be a donor, he was four times as likely to get a meeting with the chief of staff, and twice as likely to get a meeting with the member of Congress.