Skip to content
It defined “electioneering communications” as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a Anticipating that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) would impose penalties, Citizens United sought an After the district court ruled against Citizens United on all counts, the Supreme Court granted a writ of In order to justify its consideration of the facial constitutionality of 441(b), which had been affirmed in Because 441(b) was, in the court’s view, an onerous ban on political speech (notwithstanding the availability of political action committees), it could be justified only if it were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that political spending is a form of free speech that’s protected under the First Amendment.
Posted Fri, January 22nd, 2010 11:45 pm by Lisa McElroy. The district court denied this motion and granted summary judgment to the FEC.
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Immediately perceived as historically important, the decision generated intense controversy outside the court. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, ruled that laws preventing corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for independent political advertising violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
By signing up for this email, you are agreeing to news, offers, and information from Encyclopaedia Britannica.Be on the lookout for your Britannica newsletter to get trusted stories delivered right to your inbox. The controversial 5-4 decision effectively opened the door for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to support their chosen political candidates, provided they were technically independent of the campaigns themselves. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government. Populists claim to speak for ordinary people, taking an "us versus them" stance. It was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The amendment was adopted in 1791 along with nine other amendments that make up the Bill of Rights The eight men knew the next step they took would not only change their lives, it could possibly end them as well. Some hailed it as a resounding victory for freedom of speech, while others criticized it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite The BCRA, however, had expanded the scope of FECA’s ban on corporate and union contributions and expenditures “in connection with” political elections (Section 441[b]) to include “electioneering communications” paid for with corporate or union general treasury funds (Section 203).
Although a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens was not initially deemed important, the Constitution’s supporters realized it was Freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits laws establishing a national religion or impeding the free exercise of religion for its citizens.
Anyone who has watched a U.S. detective show or two can rattle off the words: “You have the right to remain silent. All Rights Reserved. Unfortunately, over the last 50 years the U.S. Supreme Court has made several bad decisions when it comes to money in politics.
In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), widely known as the McCain-Feingold Act, after its original sponsors, Senators In one of its key provisions, Section 203, the BCRA prevented corporations or labor unions from using their general treasuries to fund “electioneering communications,” or radio, TV or satellite broadcasts that refer to a candidate for federal office within 60 days before a general election and within 30 days of a primary election.In 2008, the conservative nonprofit organization Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in U.S. District Court in The film, which the group wanted to broadcast and advertise before that year’s primary elections, strongly criticized Senator According to Citizens United, Section 203 of the BCRA violated the The U.S. District Court ruled against Citizens United on all counts, citing the decision by the U.S.