ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2017
- A video case brief of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010). For the full-text brief, visit www.quimbee.com/cases/citizen...
Citizens United (plaintiff) is a nonprofit corporation that primarily accepts funds from private donations, with a small portion of its funds coming from for-profit corporations. In January 2008, Citizens United produced a documentary film that was essentially a negative advertisement urging viewers to vote against then-Senator Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary election. Citizens United released the film in theaters and on DVD, and began running advertisements about the film’s future release on video-on-demand. The film and advertisements amounted to “express advocacy” by Citizens United, and thus raised concerns under § 441(b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Section 441(b) makes it a felony for all corporations-including nonprofit advocacy corporations-either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within thirty days of a primary election or sixty days of a general election. Section 441(b) carves out an exception for Political Action Committees (PACs) in that it permits the political speech of these groups, even when the PACs are formed by corporations. Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of § 441(b) in federal district court against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) (defendant) on the ground that § 441(b) was an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech for corporations. The district court ruled for the FEC, and Citizens United appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
great video! very helpful!!
The "Buckley Court" ?
"No evidence to support that corporate speech corrupts the political process" Are you effing kidding me
hockeyfan131993 the constitution says Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech. It does not matter if you don’t like the speech, it is hate speech, or if it comes from a person or corporation. Confess simply does not have the power.
@@smhollanshead I wonder how it would be interpreted today and why congress doesn't have the power to check corporate America.
Ed Spillane it would be another five to four Supreme Court decision. I’m more concerned about the national news media becoming the propaganda wing for Communist China. Does anyone but the American press believe this country has had more flu cases and deaths than China? Disney cares more about the Asian movie market than US box office receipts. And, they are not the only one!
@@smhollanshead There are limits to EVERY constitutional right. Like you can't yell fire in a movie theater. Not allowing corporate money to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections in no way compromises the first amendment.
hockeyfan131993 its not about the person’s rights. It’s about whether Congress has the power to enact laws suppressing speech. The Federal government has only limited powers. Congress has no power to regulate speech. And given the people in Congress, I’m glad Congress is limited when it comes to censorship or the suppression of speech.
"Attack"
"A citizen's "corporate identity". Lol, completely Orwellian.
I agree with the Framers' fear of corporate political speech, with a combination of wealth. And as an aspiring law student, I disagree with the ruling because it leads some corporations, mostly anti-environmental, to support candidates who are mostly anti-environmental, thus leading to a bitter divide between environmentalists and anti-environmentalists.
But wouldn't it also lead to pro environmental corporations supporting pro environmental candidates? I think it's highly likely given that many corporations would say minimum like the perception of being for the environment.
@@agisler87 Define "anti-environmental", please.
This creep Bopp needs to be locked up in prison
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
yeah
E
The ruling that ruined everything
Scalia the all seeing ..” the founders wouldn’t consider today”s corporations the way the did of corporations back when constitution was written “......he knows just what the founders were thinking....he is so smart ....
What else you think common law judges are? They are basically ultra-powerful historians.
@@nathanli3024 false. Of course you support this Communist bs though 🙄
Freedom of speech will always win
and sadly scalia was murdered... one of our SCOTUS who made sense
Yes by Jimmy dean
While a first amendment right can be used in a way that is detrimental, you can’t take away the freedoms granted to us in the Constitution. Just because you don’t like something does not give you the right to take away my first amendment freedoms.
why not
@@hughmungus4243 because it is a right expressly granted to the people in the constitution, because we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, the most fundamental is the right of free speech, and most importantly, because it would be the wrong thing to do.
@@smhollanshead Corporations arent people. IDK who came up with that but if we didnt treat them as such then this wouldn't have to be a first amendment issue. I doubt the old white men in 1776 ever intended for billion dollar companies to play such a influential role in politics because technology has vastly changed since their time. And somehow "freedom of speech is most important" all up until people start protesting then come the REAL laws infringing on our liberties.
@@hughmungus4243 start at the beginning. A very good place to start. The words of the US constitution have a clear meaning: “Congress shall pass NO LAW abridging freedom of speech.” The restriction is on Congress. Congress cannot pass a law that restrict speech for anyone, including corporations. You want public policy to override the clear language of the first amendment. It just can’t be done this way. If you want to change the rules you must first change the constitution, and that is not likely to happen!
@@smhollanshead People probably said the same thing when black people didnt have the right to vote but look where we are now. Corporations with massive wealth are corrupting politics and its been proven to help republicans (which are the horrible people and tried to overthrow the government). We let money influence the very same elections that allowed some orange doofus into the white house who was a monumental racist and you just sit here and act like we should accept it because some old white dude said so. Change is inevitable and pretending like something is ok because it is written in the constitution (as if a room full of slave owners are the ultimate keepers of authority that should still govern us today) then you need to grow up and learn something.
"this Court now concludes that independent expenditures,
including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption"
I've never heard anything so fucking ridiculous. Of course it can give rise to corruption. Have you never heard of the word 'bribery'? Your court is a fucking joke
You're an absolute bell end. That's a pocket to pocket transaction. Stop commenting on YT videos to go colonize and plunder foreign lands for your self-entitled aristocratic desires, you dickheads.
There is a difference between pocket to pocket donation and independent expenditure.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 Wrong. There's no difference whatsoever.
"Can I coordinate an independent expenditure with a candidate?
No. An expenditure that supports a candidate's campaign for elective office will be considered an "independent expenditure" only if it is made without any involvement by the candidate or any of the candidate's agents. An expenditure that is directly or indirectly coordinated with a candidate is a contribution to that candidate."
How tf are you going to prove that the candidate hasn't been sending text messages to coordinate how the $ is spent? How are you going to prove there was no quid pro quo eg "if you agree to let us flood USA with opiates, we'll run ads against your opponents" ? Since it's impossible to distinguish between contribution & independent expenditure they are the same thing.
@@willcollins4246 There's no difference between "pocket to pocket transaction" & independent expenditure. USA is a shit country. It has legalised bribery. It is corrupt & should be taken back into the United Kingdom for it's own good.