A+-+POLS+451+Citizens+United

=This is the page for [|Citizens United v. FEC] materials.=

So now the USSC says that corporations do not have privacy rights. I thought they were people? [|FCC v. ATT, per SCOTUSBLOG] (Evan 3/7/11)

This is the [|Volokh Conspiracy]page on Citizens United, for a libertarian/conservative perspective. [|SCOTUSblog]page with amici curiae briefs. (Marcie)

[|opensecrets.org] 2010 Outside Spending (Marcie)

Video on Citizens United from group promoting constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. (Evan 3/1/11) media type="youtube" key="k5kHACjrdEY" height="390" width="640"

Santa Clara Railroad case--corporations as "persons" under the 14th Amendment:

Keith Olbermann's Commentary--includes prescient statement about what is happening now in Wisconsin and Indiana. (Marcie 03/04/11) media type="youtube" key="PKZKETizybw" height="390" width="640"

The National Review's perspective on the ruling:[|More Free Speech] (Marcie 03/04/11)

Gallup poll regarding decision, located here. (Matthew 04/02/11)

National Journal article offering a slightly original way to decide Citizens United (though following a logic explicitly and implicitly suggested by Justice Stevens), located here. (article found on Academic Premier, you may have to log in to view it) (Matthew 04/02/11).

Another National Journal article discussing judicial activism in light of majority blocs and how the practice of activism is evading judicial process, located here. (Matthew 04/02/11).

An article from Communication Law & Policy journal relating the decision in //Lochner// and its relevance to //Citizen's United//. Notably, it applies the "artificial baseline" analysis. Find it here. (Marcie: I think you'd really benefit from this article) (Matthew 04/02/11).

Article applying a semantic analysis to the word "person" and how it relates to American civil liberty law, generally, and //Citizens Untied//, specifically; it is located [|here]. (Marcie: pay special attention to this article) (Matthew 04/02/11).

This article focuses on the legislative response to //Citizens// in the twice-voted down law known as the DISCLOSE (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections) Act. Find it here. (Matthew 04/02/11).

C-Span: the oral argument in Citizens United, with audio and transcript:

[|Link to C-Span] (Evan 3/5/11)

[|Link to get a copy of]

"A Capitalist Joker: The Strange Origins, Disturbing Past and Uncertain Future of Corporate Personhood in American Law" from the Constitutional Accountability Center.
(Evan 3/5/11)

What a difference two justices make. This chart tracks the USSC membership from the //Austin// decision (a 6-3 ruling that limited corporations' "free speech" rights regarding campaign spending) through //McConnell// and //Wisconsin Right to Life//, through the overruling of //Austin// in the 5-4 //Citizens United// decision. Look at how switching Roberts for Rehnquist changed the outcome. __Rehnquist, a staunch conservative, voted with the majority__ in the decision that Roberts voted to overrule. (M means voted with majority) (Evan 3/6/11) (reverses //Austin//) || (wrote opinion) || Thomas || Thomas || Thomas M ||
 * //Austin// (1990) || //McConnell// (2003) || //Wisconsin R to L// (2007) || //Citizens United// (2010)
 * Rehnquist -M || Rehnquist || **Roberts** || **Roberts** - M ||
 * Scalia || Scalia || Scalia || Scalia - M ||
 * Kennedy || Kennedy || Kennedy || Kennedy M (wrote decision) ||
 * Blackmun -M || Breyer || Breyer || Breyer ||
 * O'Connor || O'Connor || Alito || Alito M ||
 * White -M || Ginsburg || Ginsburg || Ginsburg ||
 * Marshall-M
 * Brennan -M || Souter || Souter || Sotomayor ||
 * Stevens -M || Stevens || Stevens || Stevens ||

Summaries and quotations from opinions issued by Stevens and Thomas in //Citizens United:// (Marcie 03/15/11) ** Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor join, concurring in part (Part IV) and dissenting from the principal holding. ** “All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period [before the last primary election].” The First Amendment does not dictate an affirmative answer to that question nor mandates that the Court rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures of corporations (for profit and nonprofit) and unions to decide this case. The Court’s rationale for its ruling is that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity (including corporations which may by controlled by nonresidents). Human and corporate speech is significantly different with regard to elections. Tillman Act 1907—special limitations on campaign spending by corporations //FEC v. National Right to Work Commission// (NRWC) 459 U.S. 197, 209 (1982)—unanimous ruling concluding that limitations are permissible assessment of dangers imposed by corporations to the electoral process. “The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of //Austin////.//” The majority “blazes through our precedents, //FEC// v. //Wisconsin Right to Life//, //Inc.,// [|551 U. S. 449] (2007) //(WRTL)// , //McConnell// v. //FEC// , [|540 U. S. 93] (2003) , //FEC// v. //Beaumont// , [|539 U. S. 146] (2003) , //FEC// v. //Massachusetts Citizens for Life// , //Inc.,// [|479 U. S. 238] (1986) //(MCFL)// , //NRWC// , [|459 U. S. 197] , and //California Medical Assn.// v. //FEC// , [|453 U. S. 182] (1981).” I. The Court has moved beyond the scope of the case. Citizens United abandoned its facial challenge of §203 in district court, and in this present case frame their argument as “as applied.” “The Court operates with a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel.” The Court could have decided the case on narrower grounds (ex. that did not include for profit corporations and unions) that would be more in line with judicial restraint. Also, the Court could have applied //Austin// and //McConnell//, as the District Court did in the original ruling for //Citizens United//. II. The majority does not follow //stare decisis// and rule according to //Austin// because it does not like //Austin////.// “the majority opinion is essentially an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents. The only relevant thing that has changed since //Austin// and //McConnell// is the composition of this Court.” III. __The So-Called Ban__—The Court claims that //Austin// and //McConnell// have “banned” corporate speech—but there is no absolute ban (PACs, individuals within the corporations). §203 functions as a time, place, and manner restriction. __Identity-based distinctions__—speaker’s identity restrictions are upheld for government employees and students, etc. Corporations are not natural persons, so campaign finance distinctions are less worrisome. __First Amendment Tradition__—//Citizen’s United// is a radical departure from settled First Amendment law, not //Austin// and //McConnell.// 1. Original understandings of speech were for individuals, not corporations. 2. Compelling government interest justified §203 (congressional legislation upheld by Court). 3. Opinion argues that //Buckley// and //Bellotti// decisively rejected the possibility of distinguishing corporations from natural persons. //Buckley// involved different statute and //Bellotti// sits perfectly well with //Austin a//nd //McConnell.// For over 100 years, the line of campaign finance reform decisions have recognized realities of electoral integrity threats imposed by large sums of money from corporate or union treasuries. The only new thing was the dissent in //Austin.// IV. __ The Anticorruption Interest __ Undue influence and its appearance jeopardizes “democratic integrity,” a concern underlying state and federal efforts to regulate the role of corporations in the electoral process. //__Quid pro quo C__//__orruption__ “ . . .they encompass the myriad ways in which outside parties may induce an officeholder to confer a legislative benefit in direct response to, or anticipation of, some outlay of money the parties have made or will make on behalf of the officeholder.” Recent prevalence of issue ads has been corporations’ method to circumvent FECA’s hard money contribution limitations. Independent expenditures serve to ingratiate politicians to corporations whose spending aided their campaign. Congress and outside experts have generated evidence corroborating corruption or appearance of corruption, but this was not part of the government’s brief since Citizens United abandoned its facial challenge. __ Deference and Incumbent Self-Protection __ It has been suggested that the BCRA Section 203 may have been “an incumbency protection plan,” but we should defer to Congress’ factual findings and constitutional judgment for over a quarter century. Otherwise the Court denies Congress the ability to regulate electioneering, which is a consequence of this ruling. __Austin__ __and Corporate Expenditures__ 1. Antidistortion—corporations are different from humans. They have no conscience, feelings, and beliefs; and are not “we the people.” Corporate speech is derivative, speech by proxy—just who is speaking for the corporation? Corporations may drown out noncorporate voices leading to corporate domination of elections. Also, they may have a chilling effect on the politicians that benefit from their largesse. The marketplace of ideas will become dominated by a few. 2. Shareholder Protection—from coerced speech of stockholders when corporations support candidates that are objectionable or contrary to their ideologies. “[S]hareholder protection rationale, in other words, bolsters the conclusion that restrictions on corporate electioneering can serve both speakers’ and listeners’ interests, as well as the anticorruption interest. And it supplies yet another reason why corporate expenditures merit less protection than individual expenditures.” V. “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”

** Justice Thomas concurring in all but Part IV of the court’s opinion. ** “Political speech is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment.” Full constitutional speech is closer to being restored by the first step of striking down §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).

Thomas would go further and strike down disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements in BCRA §§201 and 311. Thomas supports his dissent by referring to the many amici filed in relation to events after California’s passage of Proposition 8, amending the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. By following the mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements of BCRA §§201 and 311, contributors to both sides in the Proposition 8 campaign gave personal information that was subsequently compiled and disseminated by opposition members. Thomas adds that intimidation tactics (such as those promulgated after campaign donor litsts were disseminated) pre-empt citizens’ exercise of 1st Amendment rights. Thomas argues the Court wrongly claims that “[d]isclaimer and disclosure requirements. . . impose no ceiling. . . and do not prevent anyone from speaking.”

(Matthew, 4/2/11) I find Justice Thomas' understanding of Justice Kennedy's opinion regarding BCRA §§201 and 311 strange. Kennedy concedes that retaliation is a possibility. Such a notion is recognized in //McConnell//. Per the opinion in //Citizens//, following McConnell, if there is reasonably probability of threats, harassment, etc. then parties can evade BCRA §§201 and 311. Justice Thomas seems to be speaking on a moot point.

**Summaries of Syllabus and Opinion delievered by Justice Kennedy.** The document is rather long. The syllabus is not necessary to read though for more information and other ways of understanding the opinion it may prove helpful. Be sure to focus on section III (3) the most. Also, I bolded quotes/sentences/interpretations/legal arguments or reasonings that I found to be particularly significant, interesting, strange, or otherwise. (Matthew 04/02/11).



** References ** "Campaign Finance and Free Speech." //Congressional Digest// 89.7 (2010): 193. //Academic Search Premier//. EBSCO. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. This article is a response to the decision made and it examines finance reform. []

“Comments: //Citizens United v. FEC:// Corporate Political Speech.” //Harvard Law Review//". 124. 1 (2010), 75-82. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.cc.uic.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2da059af-7d93-47c1-b690-74b529e15480%40sessionmgr14&vid=5&hid=13. (accessed April 13, 2011).  Overview of case and scholar interpretations of ruling. Also linked above.

Gerencser, Steven. “The Corporate Person and Democratic Politics.” //Political Research Quarterly// 58 .4 (2005): 625-635. [] Theoretical analysis of corporate personhood.

Gilpatrick, Breanne. "REMOVING CORPORATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE RESTRICTIONS IN Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. CT. 876 (2010)." //Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy// 34.1 (2011): 405-420. //Academic Search Premier//. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. [] This article compares Court’s changing view on campaign finance regulation. First corporate spending was limited and then it was. This article compares the two decisions.

Jacobs, Jeremy P. "The Case That Could Change The Race." //Politics (Campaigns & Elections)// 30.10 (2009): 38-41. //Academic Search Premier//. EBSCO. Web. 10 Apr. 011. [] This article talks about the meaning of the case for campaign finance laws and its impact on the elections.

Kirp, David L. "How Now, Brown ?." //Nation// 254.21 (1992): 757-759. //Academic Search Premier//. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. [] This article challenges Rosenberg’s book about being the Supreme Court being inefficient (not dynamic), and how their decisions in Brown v. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade did not give way to social change. He talks about how, on the contrary, these decisions influenced lawyers and law schools across the nation.

Mayer, Carl J. “Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights.” // Hastings //// Law Journal // 41.577 (1990): 577-667. [] Applies Bill of Rights to corporate personhood.

McLaughlin, Andrew C. “The Court, The Corporation, and Conkling.” //The American Historical Review// 46.1 (1940): 45-63. [] An historical perspective (up to 1940) of corporate personhood.

Piety, Tamara R. "CITIZENS UNITED AND THE THREAT TO THE REGULATORY STATE." // Michigan //// Law Review // 109.1 (2010): 16-22. //Academic Search Premier//. EBSCO. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. [] This article talks about the possible impact of the decision on the commercial speech doctrine and elections. It provides an overview of the association between commercial and corporate speech.

Werner, Timothy. "The Sound, the Fury, and the Nonevent: Business Power and Market Reactions to the Citizens United Decision." //American Politics Research// 39.1 (2011): 118-141. //Academic Search Premier//. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. [] In this article, the author examines some of the consequences of the decisions and what it means for businesses. He gets into detail and examines the popular view that corporations can now have ownership over of American democracy and what Justice Steven’s said in his dissent.

Wood, Stephen G. and Brett G. Scharffs. “Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Private Corporations: An American Perspective.” // The American Journal of Comparative Law, //50, Supplement: American Law in a Time of Global Interdependence: U. S. National Reports to the 16th International Congress of Comparative Law (2002): 531-566. Theoretical, historical, and international perspectives on corporate personhood and rights.