Briana Santaniello
October 19, 2013
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
1. Hillary: The Movie was certainly a disguised campaign ad and not a journalistic documentary.
The website displays a quote by Bob Novak: “Senator Clinton has an extraordinary ability to
obfuscate, to refuse to answer questions, to avoid confrontations; and up until now has been
given a pass on it” (Hillary: The Movie). Had the movie been released after the elections were
over, this could potentially be considered a journalistic documentary; however the movie was
made while Hillary Clinton was campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination and
should thus be categorized as a disguised campaign ad.
Permitting an exception to its broadcast would have been incorrect, as even the majority opinion
written by Chief Justice Roberts indicated the film was an electioneering communication due to
the fact that it would reach 50,000 or more voters and was “a feature-length negative ad”
(Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 890). The McCain-Feingold Act banned any
electioneering communication (broadcast, cable, or satellite) “that clearly identified a federal
candidate from being made within 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary
and targeted to the relevant electorate” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Therefore making Hillary: The
Movie available through video-on-demand services would have violated this law.
Rather than create an exception in the law to permit its broadcast, the Court could have upheld
the law and required that Citizens United use its political action committee (PAC) to show the
video any time before the 30 or 60 days prior to elections (Steiner & Steiner, 2012), as suggested
by Justice John Paul Stevens.
2. The First Amendment should not protect corporate political expression. As Justice Stevens
wrote, “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires”
(Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 972). The First Amendment was intended to
protect the full, open debate on candidates and issues to afford citizens the ability to vote wisely.
Using corporate funds to pay for political campaigns does not afford citizens the ability to vote
wisely; it corrupts the voting process.
As explained by Jay Gould, owner of the Erie Railroad, “In a republican district I was a strong
republican, in a democratic district I was democratic, and in doubtful districts I was doubtful; in
politics I was an Erie railroad man every time” (The Life and Legend of Jay Gould). The use of
corporate funds is for the interest of the corporation, not for the interest of the voters.
Corporations will contribute as much as possible to a variety of candidates on both sides,
complicating the voting process for the electorate, and therefore the First Amendment should not
protect such political expression.
First Amendment protections should only apply to individual citizens. The First Amendment
states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (U.S.
Const. am 1). The First Amendment was intended to protect Americans’, not corporations’, basic
civil liberties.
3. If I had been on the Supreme Court during this case, I would have joined the dissent. Citizens
United’s desire to show Hillary: The Movie did not meet the criteria to qualify for an exception.
It was most certainly an electioneering communication due to the number of voters it would
reach and its clear mention of a presidential candidate. Abiding by the law set forth, Citizens
United could have set up a PAC and played the movie numerous times so long as it was not
played during the blackout periods stated in the law.
4. After Citizens United, there was no longer a ban on independent expenditures by corporations;
however the disclosure and disclaimer requirements still applied, making the rules for corporate
participation not strict enough. Voters are now inadequately protected from corporate corruption
of the voting process. The outcome of Citizens United resulted in the inability of voters to vote
wisely because corporations acting in their own self-interest can provide financial support to any
political party they please if they believe the political candidate will support their cause. This
may mean the corporation will support multiple candidates from various parties, making it
impossible for the voters to decide who the corporation is actually in support of, and confused
about which ads to believe and which to ignore.
5. Congress should legislate in response to Citizens United. Potential actions were suggested to
correct the problems created by the decision of Citizens United. These decisions included passing
a constitutional amendment, requiring shareholder approval (by majority vote) of all corporate
political expenditures over a certain amount, creating public funding for elections, and banning
foreign contributions. Of these suggestions, passing a constitutional amendment defining a
corporation as an artificial entity to which the First Amendment rights do not apply (Legislative
Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues). In order to achieve this,
two-thirds approval in the Senate and the House would be required, as well as ratification by
three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Despite the
stringent requirements needed to put this into effect, it would be the most effective way to
protect the ability of voters to make informed decisions through robust debates by managing the
use of corporate funds for electioneering communication.
6. Since the Citizens United decision in 2010, a number of events have occurred. When the
decision was made, it created the possibility for individuals to put their funds into independent
groups in unlimited amounts. This ruling extended to all 50 states after the Supreme Court
rejected the Montana challenge to Citizens United. As of November 2012, at least 11 states had
passed a form of resolution supporting the overturning of Citizens United. Massachusetts passed
such a resolution through its legislature to demonstrate support for an amendment (Citizens
United Rejected By Voters In Montana, Colorado).
In February, California voters were set to become the largest electorate to decide whether to
support a constitutional amendment that would overrule the 2010 Citizens United decision
(Citizens United: California Poised To Become Largest Electorate To Vote On Constitutional
Amendment). Less than one month later, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and
Representative Ted Deutch of Florida introduced a constitutional amendment titled “Democracy
is for People” seeking to reverse the 2010 decision (Bernie Sanders: Citizens United Decision
‘Must Be Reversed’). Approximately two weeks later, the West Virginia House of Delegates
voted to call on Congress to enact an amendment to the decision as well (West Virginia House of
Delegates Calls For Citizens United Constitution Amendment). Such requests have yet to be
acted upon by Congress; however such making requests is a lengthy, drawn-out process and an
immediate decision is not feasible. For the sake of American voters, I sincerely hope an
amendment to the 2010 decision is made before corporations find another loophole to further
corrupt the voting process.
Works Cited
1. “Hillary: The Movie.” Hillary The Movie. Citizens United, 2008. Web. 19 Oct 2013..
2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 139 S. Ct. 876 (2012) at 890.
3. Steiner, G., & Steiner, J. (2012). Business, government, and society: A managerial
perspective, text and cases. (13 ed., pp. 183-193). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
4. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 139 S. Ct. 876 (2012) at 972.
5. Quoted in Maury Klein, The Life and Legend of Jay Gould (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins,
1986), p. 97.
6. L. Paige Whitaker, et al. Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional
and Legal Issues. Congressional Research Service Report R41096, March 8, 2010.
7. Blumenthal, Paul. "Citizens United Rejected By Voters In Montana, Colorado." The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 07 Nov. 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.
8. Miles, Kathleen. “Citizens United: California Poised To Become Largest Electorate To
Vote On Constitutional Amendment.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21
Feb. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.
9. Dunkley, Gabrielle. “Bernie Sanders: Citizens United Decision ‘Must Be Reversed.’”
The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.
10. Celock, John. “West Virginia House of Delegates Calls For Citizens United
Constitutional Amendment.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Mar.
2013. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.