Citizens United, campaign finance, and the First Amendment – Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
The Supreme Courts decision inCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission(2010) continues to stoke controversy more than 14 years after it was decided. It even got ashout-out in the critically-acclaimed Barbie movie. Are corporations people? Is money speech? Whats the First Amendment got to do with this?
For anyone interested in free speech, election laws, campaign finance, or money in politics, providing accurate answers to these questions is crucial. Lets dive in.
Lets begin by noting that there are lots of ways that money is involved in politics, including donations to candidates, political parties, and political action committees (PACS), as well as funds spent on lobbying and issue ads not mentioning a candidate. This isnot whatCitizens United was about. These common political activities can greatly influence elections and are subject to their own rules, but those rules were not before the Court here.
The key rule before the court was theBipartisan Campaign Reform Act, passed in 2002 to address the proliferation of corporate money in federal elections. Like most divas, BCRA is a lot, with a rich backstory of campaign finance rules and corresponding lawsuits, but were concerned here only with its ban on corporations spending money on media about political candidates close to an election. Specifically, BCRA banned:
For example, BCRA would have banned a nonprofit corporation from spending money on billboards promoting Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee, in October before a November 4 general election.
Lets also be clear that corporations include not just Fortune 500 companies, but also labor unions, mom-and-pop shops, newspapers, nonprofit organizations, advocacy groups, and a vast array of financial and nonfinancial entities. Everything from the ACLU, the NRA, Tesla, Apple, the New York Times, to even your favorite cafe, bar, restaurant, or gym is likely corporate. Because of the substantial financial benefits incorporation provides, most of Americas most beloved (and hated) organizations are corporations subject to BCRA.
In the runup to the 2008 Democratic Party primary election between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United sought to air Hillary: The Movie, a political documentary about Clinton. One reviewdescribes it as boldly negative, attorney and journalist Dahlia Lithwickcalled it virulently anti-Clinton, and Justice Breyerdescribed it as not a musical comedy. (So, its got that going for it.)
Yet BCRA prevented Citizens United from distributing the film in the heat of this campaign because the movie was (1) corporate-funded (2) political material (3) naming a specific candidate (4) within 30 days of a primary election. Cue the federal lawsuit that wound its way up the Supreme Court in 2010.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down BCRAs ban because it violated the fundamental First Amendment right to engage in political speech. The Court held that people do not lose their speech rights because they decide to form a corporation; that the First Amendment prohibits discriminating against classes of speakers; that the BCRA discriminated against one type of speaker, corporations; and that a restraint on spending for communication is, in fact, a restraint on speech.
Atoral argument, the justices made hay of BCRAs grave potential to censor a wide array of political speech. Anything from books and news articles to billboards and movies could violate the act, even if they contain just a single line naming a candidate. In explaining how BCRA restricts everything from environmental groups supporting pro-green candidates to the NRA condemning politicians pushing gun control, the Court decried these classic examples of censorship.
The first pillar of themajority decision is that the First Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating based on a speakers identity. The government cannot ban speech merely because speakers are corporations, especially given that they contribute to the discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas that the First Amendment seeks to foster. This bedrock principle supplements the First Amendments protection for offensive speech by ensuring diverse and controversial speakers can participate in our democracy.
From Buckley v. Valeo (1976) to Citizens United v. FEC (2010), legal disputes over the constitutionality of campaign finance laws have captured the publics attention for decades.
Read More
Corporations are not literally people, of course, but they are made up of people. They are one way that people collectively organize themselves: Labor unions, advocacy groups, nonprofits, newspapers, small businesses and, yes, other corporations have free speech rights. This is not exactly a novel concept. Fordecades beforeCitizens United, courts have consistently struck down rules squelching corporate speech. The key takeaway is the government cannot say that free speech rights differ based on the form of an entity people have chosen to form. (We do have a vested interest in this outcome FIRE is a nonprofit corporation that uses its speech rights to speak up for the rights of others.)
The Court explained how a ban on corporate expenditures is a ban on speech. Thislong-established First Amendment principle prevents the government from repress[ing] speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. Unless your advocacy consists entirely of shouting at strangers in the middle of the street, you need money to amplify your words. Pens and pencils, printers and paper, computers and connection to the internet all cost money. Just imagine the potential for censorship if the state could restrict purchasing goods and services to broadcast your message. Any spending limit necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.
BCRA, like many campaign finance laws, furthers the goal of addressing the appearance of corruption and, according to the government, the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the publics support for the corporations political ideas. But is this interest enough to justify BCRA?
When a law burdens political speech, courts generally applystrict scrutiny to evaluate whether it is constitutional under the First Amendment, which requires assessing whether it is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. In other words, does the law advance its goals without burdening protected speech any more than is necessary?
The First Amendment doesnt tolerate burdens on core political speech based on mere speculation of potential corruption.
Much of campaign finance regulation rests on dispelling corruption. If Americans believe their elections are bought and paid for, why vote? Why participate at all? This is why corporate donations to candidates remain largely banned. But this interest becomes too attenuated when it comes to any communication that merelymentions a candidate. And, on a fundamental level: Favoritism and influence are not . . . avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies. Some level of connection between expression and politics, and the responsiveness it creates, is a function of democracy.
The Court also rejected the notion that the immense wealth of corporations justifies BCRA. Restricting speech in these industries would muffle the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy. Additionally, this interest doesnt justify a ban onallcorporations, including those without massive wealth, such as small newspapers. Even if the target is wealthy companies, the First Amendment does not tolerate laws censoring media corporations.
Because of the decision, corporations can spend to their hearts desire on independent expenditures close to an election. There are still restrictions on donations, lobbying, issue ads, fundraisers, endorsements, and tons of other forms of advocacy contact your friendly neighborhood campaign finance attorney for more information on that. States also havedifferent rules for their elections as BCRA mostly only affects federal elections.
And if you disagree with the decision, we encourage you to read the dissent, which does an excellent job of breaking down the majoritys rationales. The four dissenting justices decried the corrupting effect of corporations ability to spend unrestricted sums on elections, claiming this can cause cynicism and disenchantment and an increased perception that large spenders call the tune and a reduced willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance. However, as the majority pointed out, BCRA doesnt even affect the most common forms of money in politics, such as donations, lobbying, issues ads, and independent expenditures outside of election season. The First Amendment doesnt tolerate burdens on core political speech based on mere speculation of potential corruption.
For more on the decision, its merits, and its impact, seeSCOTUSblog for the case materials and a collection of political commentary.
FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members no matter their views at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech,submit your case to FIRE today. If youre a faculty member at a public college or university, call theFaculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If youre a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).
Here is the original post:
Citizens United, campaign finance, and the First Amendment - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
- More on the New York Trump Case and the First Amendment - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Campus encampment bans rarely violate the First Amendment. Here's why. - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Students were primed for First Amendment talk. This Pierce County district backed out - Tacoma News Tribune - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Campus chaos vindicates the American system and the First Amendment - The Hill - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Trump's Trial and the First Amendment - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Can Texas public universities remove protesters from campus? First Amendment experts explain - Austin American-Statesman - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Are gag orders constitutional? SCOTUS says it depends - VERIFYThis.com - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Has a First Amendment Right to Pay Hush Money to Support his Electoral Ambitions - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023" (Which Just Passed the House) Could Suppress First-Amendment-Protected ... - Reason - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- What the First Amendment Means for Campus Protests - The New York Times - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- ACLU of Wisconsin Emphasizes the Importance Of Student's First Amendment Rights Ahead of Protests Planned at UW ... - ACLU of Wisconsin - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Indiana University Officials Need to Follow Community's Lead on Commitment to First Amendment - ACLU of Indiana - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- An American-Israeli Caught Between Antisemitism and The First Amendment - The Times of Israel - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Studios Warn Of First Amendment Implications For SAG-AFTRA-Backed AI Bill To Require Consent For Digital Voice And Likeness - Deadline - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Norman Siegel: A lifetime of protecting the First Amendment - Spectrum News NY1 - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- ACLU and First Amendment Coalition Challenge Cal Poly Humboldt's Campus Closure and Press Restrictions - Redheaded Blackbelt - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- 13 seconds of bloodshed: Community shares themes of activism, First Amendment with upcoming May 4 commemoration - Kent Wired - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Day 2 of pro-Palestinian protests on Wisconsin campuses, First Amendment expert weighs in - WISN Milwaukee - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- First Amendment under attack: How the Police State muzzles our right to speak truth to power - Washington Times - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- UngagTrump The Fight for First Amendment: The Leader in Freedom Fundraising. - GiveSendGo - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- What the First Amendment Means for Campus Protests - myheraldreview.com - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- What to do if you get arrested? What to know about the First Amendment amid Tennessee campus protests - Knoxville News Sentinel - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- What rights do protesters at the U of M encampment have? - KARE11.com - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- Sen. Vance worries college protests are moving beyond First Amendment and into chaos for local communities - WTRF - May 5th, 2024 [May 5th, 2024]
- New Stablecoin Bill Faces Criticism for Stifling Innovation and Breaching First Amendment Regulation Bitcoin News - Bitcoin.com News - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- TikTok ready to move to the courts to prevent ban in US - Ars Technica - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- Say 'Yes' to the First Amendment Minding The Campus - Minding The Campus - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- SCOTUS won't review decision that ratchets up legal risk at protests - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- OPINION | Tulane must commit to upholding First Amendment - Tulane Hullabaloo - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- Parsons' Attorney Michael Judd Participates As Panelist At First Amendment Society Event - Mondaq News Alerts - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- Does BVU know the first amendment? The Tack Online - BVU The Tack Online - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- Weber State University students using their first amendment rights - The Signpost - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- Pennsylvania Court Lets Suit Over Removal of Columbus Statue Go Forward - Reason - April 22nd, 2024 [April 22nd, 2024]
- Elon Musk to fund new First Amendment campaign to combat 'relentless attacks on free speech' - Fox News - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- Elon Musk's Plan To Fund National Signature Campaign In Support Of First Amendment Met With Praise - Yahoo! Voices - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- Don't Panic About the Supreme Court's Right to Protest RulingYet - The New Republic - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- Supreme Court Is Apparently Fine with the Assault on the First Amendment That Is Mckesson v. Doe - Esquire - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- NPR boss once called the First Amendment a 'challenge' and 'reverence for the truth' a distraction - Fox News - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- Kerrville Residents File First Amendment Lawsuit In Federal Court Against City - The Texan - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- NPR Against the First Amendment - The New York Sun - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- Civics lesson: First Amendment rights are broad, but there are limits - Tennessean - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states - Vox.com - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- Media Miss by the Left: Elon Musk to fund new First Amendment campaign to combat 'relentless attacks on free speech' - Straight Arrow News - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- Supreme Court allows police officers suit to move forward against Black Lives Matter leader - The Hill - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- Tom Cotton Clearly Hates The First Amendment - Betches - April 20th, 2024 [April 20th, 2024]
- A new Supreme Court case threatens to take away your right to protest - Vox.com - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- No, Blocking Traffic Is Not Protected by the First Amendment - Reason - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Cable Giants Insist That Forcing Them To Make Cancellations Easier Violates Their First Amendment Rights - Above the Law - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Know Your Rights: Students in Higher Education & the First Amendment - New York Civil Liberties Union - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Star-Spangled Fascism: Extremists and the First Amendment - GBH News - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- SPJ co-authors legal brief supporting First Amendment right to record and publish livestreamed court hearings - Society of Professional Journalists - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Star-Spangled Fascism: Extremists and the First Amendment - KPBS - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Letter writer reminds others about intent behind the First Amendment - Call Newspapers - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- FCC's Jessica Rosenworcel On Trump Broadcast License Threats: First Amendment Guides Us. - Insideradio.com - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Faith-based school chaplains would test First Amendment - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Arrested citizen journalist wasn't 'martyr' for journalism, 5th Circuit says in tossing her First Amendment suit - ABA Journal - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- First Amendment Bowled Over by Lanham Act Again - The National Law Review - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Florida House passes HB 1 to ban kids 16 and under from having social media accounts - NBC 6 South Florida - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Lawmakers debate whether mostly banning mugshots violates the First Amendment - My Buckhannon - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Lizzo Accusers Say First Amendment Is No Reason To Throw Out Assault, Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Suit Against Grammy Winner - Yahoo... - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Trump Appeals Gag To Protect First Amendment Right To Intimidate ... - Above the Law - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Chemerinsky: 'I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Prosecutors Mock Trump Attempt To Get Election Case Dismissed ... - Above the Law - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- New bill to criminalize flying unauthorized flags on public property ... - Alabama Daily News - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- This First Amendment Attack is Designed to Reduce Gun Ownership ... - America's 1st Freedom - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- SGA Amendment to Make Amendments Easier Passes; Will Move to ... - PantherNOW - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Civil rights leaders cannot be held liable for acts of rogue protestors - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Justice Department Announces Investigation of the City of Lexington ... - Department of Justice - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Danny De Gracia: Don't Fall For Fake Election News This Year ... - Honolulu Civil Beat - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Mike Johnson: The Christian Nationalist Speaker Daily Montanan - Daily Montanan - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- AI and a marketplace of illusion and confusion - The Fulcrum - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Increased efforts to require party labels in Ohio races - Spectrum News 1 - November 13th, 2023 [November 13th, 2023]
- Louisiana's 'In God We Trust' Law May Violate Establishment Clause Of The First Amendment - TPM - November 7th, 2023 [November 7th, 2023]
- Coalition of Baptist leaders will file amicus brief challenging NAMB's view of First Amendment - Baptist News Global - November 7th, 2023 [November 7th, 2023]
- Legal Docket: Facebook and the First Amendment - WORLD News Group - November 7th, 2023 [November 7th, 2023]
- How First Amendment protections are limiting our ability to ensure ... - Slate - November 7th, 2023 [November 7th, 2023]
- The right to disagree matters | WORLD - WORLD News Group - November 7th, 2023 [November 7th, 2023]
- Woodland Park teachers win their fight to restore First Amendment ... - Colorado Public Radio - November 7th, 2023 [November 7th, 2023]
- Flagler County judge dismisses traffic tickets against 'First ... - Palm Coast Observer and Ormond Beach Observer - November 7th, 2023 [November 7th, 2023]
- Kansas resident removed from meeting wins First Amendment case ... - Heartlander News - November 7th, 2023 [November 7th, 2023]
Tags: