Citizens United v. FEC | BRI's Homework Help Series

Citizens United v. FEC was a Supreme Court case surrounding campaign finance and corporate involvement in politics. The Federal Election Commission was created in 1971 and greatly regulated the amount of campaign finance political candidates were able to receive. By 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Act) restricted organizations from financing issue-based advertisements on behalf of candidates. This Citizens United v FEC summary explains how Citizens United released a million dollar ad against Hillary Clinton. Before the film aired, Citizens United challenged the McCain-Feingold Act, stating that money was a form of Free Speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional, but stated that corporations still cannot give money directly to political candidates.
Supreme Court Document-Based Questions: billofrightsinstitute.org/cur...
Media and American Democracy: billofrightsinstitute.org/cur...
Landmark Supreme Court Cases: billofrightsinstitute.org/lan...
About Bill of Rights Institute:
Established in September 1999, the Bill of Rights Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization that works to engage, educate, and empower individuals with a passion for the freedom and opportunity that exist in a free society. The Institute develops educational resources and programs for a network of more than 50,000 educators and 70,000 students nationwide.
Official Site: billofrightsinstitute.org
Facebook: / billofrightsinstitute
Twitter: / brinstitute
Instagram: / brinstitute
BRI Educator Newsletter Sign Up Page: billofrightsinstitute.org/new...
#citizensunitedvfec #mccain-feingoldact #freespeech #firstamendment #citizensunitedvfecsumary

[@3mi3mi]

You took a complex issue and made it clear and concise. Exactly what I needed for my government class. Thank you!

[@BillofRightsInstituteVideos]

Emilia, we are glad it helped in your government class!

[@Macphotographs]

Thank you for a fair, fact based explanation of Citizens United.

[@jessjess927]

Thank you for explaining this in a way that wasn't trying to pass on a certain opinion about it all. Fact-based and truth-based. Need more content like this!

[@leahprentice2808]

thanks for helping me out on my ap gov test!

[@casey08109]

This was so helpful! It was clear and concise while being informative and interesting! Thank you so much!

[@hnichole]

Thank you for clearly explaining the case; I feel like I finally understand it for my AP Government class!

[@jjwesker1061]

Well I had an assignment which I had to analyze that Court Case. This video clarified the main idea of the case, and it helped me on my assignment as well as my comprehension of it. Now I am sure to memorize this easily for the AP Exam! Thank goodness I found you all! :D

[@alio4916]

Thank you this was so hey helpful for an essay I needed to write in my Government class! Made a complex topic much more simple to understand

[@jamesduncan8526]

Thank you again for your media content. Videos such as these are beyond helpful in my American Government classes for students to understand complex topics.

[@afowler424]

Thanks so much! This is the only video on this case that really made sense to me

[@SilviaFingerotter]

Thank you for this video! I'm doing a presentation on the history of campaign finance law and this was a great recap of the case.

[@Hotpinkzebra66]

This helped me SO MUCH thank you for this.

[@mikeyRD08]

This was a nice freaking video. That man has a lovely voice, and there's even exciting - attention grabbing music in the background. Thanks guys.

[@mr.clark-civicsandhistory1461]

great video thank you

[@hazard9910]

i'm impressed! Very concise! I have an AP gov test soon and I have watched many other videos on this particular topic. All were extremely biased and only showed parts of the story. Thank you for a clear, objective summary! :)

[@christianclark7896]

Thank you for providing a lucid and objective outline of this controversial issue. I was grimacing incorrectly anticipating a purportedly objective take that was going to push some kind of value judgement. None of that here, great video!

[@BillofRightsInstituteVideos]

We are ecstatic to hear that! We try extremely hard to provide wonderful content that is as objective as one can be!

[@reinfeddedewolff5565]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR EXPLAINING THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF LIMITED MONEY BEFORE 2010/AND UNLIMITED/DARK MONEY EVEN AFTER CITIZENS UNITED 2010 AS SUCH.

[@Liam-Carlson]

best video on the internet. This was a very complex issue and you made it clear. Thank you.

[@TheSab3r]

Perfect Thank you !! Gonna snipe that A in tomorrow’s test

[@oscarhanson3095]

Why does the background music make me want to cry....? Probably just me lol and great, elaborate video

[@tsurugikamiya3161]

Helps for my civics class thanks! =D

[@celticgirl389]

Thank you so much for your unbiased explanation. Just have one question-- what does Citizens United v FEC have to say about disclosing the information of their donors?

[@BillofRightsInstituteVideos]

This is from History.com: "In its decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court did endorse the longstanding idea that spending in a political campaign should be disclosed to the public in order to prevent corruption. In the Internet age, the Court reasoned, the public should easily be able to inform itself about corporate-funded political advertising, and identify 'whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.' In practice, however, it didn’t work that way, as some of the nonprofit organizations now able to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns claimed tax-exempt status as 'social welfare' organizations, which did not have to disclose their donors’ identities." I hope that answers your question.

[@Linase]

We need a new amendment to specifically address corporations. By allowing corporations to pay for ads and make other campaign contributions it’s literally destroying our society. Politicians are dependent on corporations to win elections and they return the favor by doing whatever they want, no longer serving their constituents.

[@freddyayala7797]

THANK GOD I NEEDED THIS!!!

[@etherealceleste]

To sum up: Before Citizens United, the Media and Hollywood were ALLOWED to advertise for candidates. After Citizens United, ANYONE is now allowed.

[@victorluna9434]

Celeste Gauthier not everyone anything since the Supreme Court decided that corporations and labor unions are the same thing as people

[@victorluna9434]

Levi Brennan that argument isn’t very valid because why don’t the people that make up the corporation donate their own money. It’s because they don’t want to spend their own money and would rather use the corporation money to do it. So this idea of corporations are people is ridiculous because it isn’t a person. It’s a major business whose only goal is to make more money for itself

[@victorluna9434]

Levi Brennan not to mention with the logic you stated. It would therefore be okay for corporations to vote and run for office

[@meaghanpublicity]

No, Celeste. Before Citizens United, no one was allowed unlimited, undisclosed advertising for candidates. Individuals were allowed to donate up to $5000 per person, per year to outside political action committees, and corporations and unions were excluded. This would include a Hollywood studio or a media company. After Citizens United, corporations and unions (including a production or media company) can use general treasury funds to give unlimited, undisclosed funds to PACs. There was a case SpeechNow vs. the FEC that followed Citizens United that lifted the limits on individuals. In this way, the ultra-rich have more power than the rest of us, and it is nearly impossible to track their spending.

[@cindylou6264]

i literally love you

[@plalelal]

So who do corporations and unions give their money to if not individuals? PAC's

[@BillofRightsInstituteVideos]

Exactly! They donate to PACs and other organizations to support the issues that surround a political candidate.

[@deniseramirez8743]

How does the stake holders affect the business, society, and government

[@MikeBaia]

This decision by 9 people took away the power of 150,000,000 people

[@tochiokwuadigboafriendofje7656]

what is the name of the songs in this song?

[@OroborusFMA]

This was the final stake in the heart of American capitalist democracy.

[@questionreality6003]

MANY times the rich guy didn't get the votes the poor guy did - I think people are smart enough to vote for the person that seems the best and most honest to do the job the best of the choices she or he has.

[@John_Fx]

If this case had gone the other way, wouldn't any Hollywood documentary (a for profit enterprise) that endorsed or spoke out against a candidate from either party be illegal? Does it make a difference if Exxon, Greenpeace or Paramount Pictures is that corporation?

[@narcar6392]

May you please explain 2:15 to 2:35.. in an easier way, I’m kind of confused

[@anah1269]

So as far as I understand, a company spent a lot of money making a movie saying that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be president. If the film was considered to be a type of campaigning (since it regarded people running for President), then it would go against laws prohibiting spending above a certain amount of money on a campaign. However it could also be interpreted not as campaigning, but as simply an exercise of free speech, which would make the amount of money they spent on it totally fine. What Citizens United was trying to say was that the movie was just an exercise of free speech, and so are other forms of things that could be considered campaigning, so the law that put a limit on how much people could spend on campaigning went against the right to free speech.

[@LARPANET_3087]

Is anyone else really hung up on how 1971's FECA really sounds like "fecal?"

[@brennanfralick6180]

It’s illegal for companies to contribute directly to a campaign but not illegal to fund projects that the campaign would be spending its money on anyway…. Wtf

[@veraconwell8373]

Is this the McCONNELL, UNITED STATES SENATOR, et al. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION et al.(2003)

[@BillofRightsInstituteVideos]

No. It is Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

[@Patrick61804]

And now Massachusetts is trying to get rid of it

[@stephens1585]

yeh I hate this communist state of MA

[@Nognamogo]

@@stephens1585 Are you a fucking idiot? Corporations are able to overrule the average citizen through huge campaign donations. This is anti Democratic, and MA isn't communist for standing for the power of voters.

[@galax4304]

Got a ap gov test tommorrow wish me luck

[@hilpei3675]

Money is NOT speech!

[@sjr042]

Money is NOT counsel either, but a limit on how much money you can spend to hire a lawyer would equally violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. A cap on how much money you can spend on guns would violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A cap on how many printing presses a newspaper company can acquire additionally violates the First Amendment. They're all a means to an end. Limiting the means necessarily entails limiting the end.

[@adams1458]

Thx Hillary.

[@darksavior1187]

So in effect the supreme court validated and affirmed buying elections, or making it too expensive for some candidates to even run. It also makes candidates entirely beholden to whoever can pay more, and forces them to kowtow to those special interests, as well as spend a majority of their time fundraising because of how expensive it is to win an election.

[@erikmerrill8280]

No in other words, Hillary Clinton can’t silence a movie that was critical of her during an election.

[@thehomeplatespecial597]

Only half correct

[@John_Fx]

As long as individuals vote, there is no such thing as buying an election. Corporations can't vote. Unless you think we are so stupid we can't make up our own minds if a documentary tries to convince us otherwise.

[@dylanploghoft4173]

@@John_Fx corporations cant vote in an election but they can indirectly in congress. Do you think that this only pertains to presidential elections. We do in fact vote people into Congress that we think will represent us properly but when it comes down to it, we have no say on what those said people do or vote for. Just seems fishy if you ask me. Just take the last stimulus package, for example, tons of bailouts for huge corporations but barely anything for the people. Definitely, more to this than meets the eye I think.

[@bimi6108]

Crazy how bro said contrer-ver-see-il

[@McLovin1776]

Who is here from management 3540?

[@vl7852]

Well 2021 and well.... Dumb move

[@gwantM]

Not really into the whole money influencing politics, but the idea that it mostly started because a film came out that the opposing side didn't like. Seems like a dangerous path to go down.

[@ethanmckenzie6116]

Not because the opposing side didn't like the film, but because it was illegal for the film to be aired within 30 days of a primary.

[@invest_in_dogecoin6398]

Get big money out of politics. Our country is becoming an oligarchy

[@aegontargaryen219]

Citizens United is the worst thing to happen to our government. When money = speech, speech is no longer free

[@stephens1585]

more like when money cannot be used as speech, speech is no longer free

[@gabrielrf1]

@@stephens1585 Very ignorant corporate shill! Sad!

[@stephens1585]

joshua johnson that’s makes no sense but okay buddy.

[@stephens1585]

Gabriel Roig-Francoli yep very ignorant college student who has definitely been bought out by a corporate company. It’s funny how I have a lot of college debt and still I know that Bernie isn’t the answer.

[@stephens1585]

Gar Goil oh yes biggest dupe in the land. refute my words with an actual argument please.

[@jakeharvey6692]

Your pronunciation of controversial is controversial...

[@PlaidCladBrad]

Thanks for the biased perspective! I wonder why you only highlighted politicians within the Democrat party? Surely, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Bill of Rights Institute is an organization launched by the Koch Family.

[@sjr042]

Probably because the plaintiff was a conservative nonprofit group that wished to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton. It wasn't a progressive group wishing to air a film critical of Mitt Romney or something.

[@alphahorn6163]

Are cooperations people? ...No they're not but they are a collection of people. When a cooperation is formed, should it loose some rights? Mmmmmmm nah. We all know that pure capitalism works!