Supreme Court Case: Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commission

The case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission was argued before the Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. Citizens United produced a political documentary that discussed whether Hillary Clinton would be a good president, however, the FEC stated that this was violating the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Although the film could have been shown in theaters, sold on DVDs, downloaded from the internet, and distributed in the form of a book, the producers could have faced five years in jail if they offered the documentary on Videos on Demand.
Attorney Theodore Olsen, who argued on behalf of Citizens United, claimed that the FEC was violating Citizens United’s First Amendment rights by limiting the films distribution. One key argument made by Olsen is that the BCRA did not intend to prohibit this type of film. Olsen claimed that the film was indistinguishable from news media; however, Justice Souter cited numerous examples of the documentary bashing then Senator Clinton and suggested that the film was more like campaign advocacy. This is an important distinction—does it make a difference if the film
In his opening statement, Stewart cited the Wisconsin Right to Life case that established that “a court should find that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” This functional equivalence test does not depend on either the length or medium in which the advertisement is distributed. By this standard, the film in question is still considered express advocacy and is subject to regulation. Furthermore, the main premise of the BCRA, and the premise of the corporation’s willingness to spend money is that enough people will be interested in the advertisements and can potentially effect an election. This is what the BCRA set out to