Page:Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.pdf/1

(Slip Opinion)

Syllabus

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

No. 08–205.&emsp;Argued March 24, 2009—Reargued September 9, 2009—Decided January 21, 2010

As amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an "electioneering communication" or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U.S.C. §441b. An electioneering communication is "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" that "refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office" and is made within 30 days of a primary election, §434(f)(3)(A), and that is "publicly distributed," 11 CFR §100.29(a)(2), which in "the case of a candidate for nomination for President ... means" that the communication "[c]an be received by 50,000 or more persons in a State where a primary election ... is being held within 30 days," §100.29(b)(3)(ii). Corporations and unions may establish a political action committee (PAC) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2). In McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 203–209, this Court upheld limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.

In January 2008, appellant, a nonprofit corporation, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then-Senator , a candidate for her party's Presidential nomination. Anticipating that it would make Hillary available on cable television through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections, Citizens United produced television ads to run on broadcast