Citizens United

1
Citizens United

• Bus 303 Group R
• Luke Genereux, Elvin Li, Selma Duric, Jiajun
  Liang, Thera Chow, Jennifer Gutzmann

2
Todays Presentation
3
Electioneering Communication S441B

• Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA)
• Corporations and unions cannot spend their money
  on election-related communications which promote
  or put down a candidate.
• This includes broadcast, cable, or satellite
  communications
• It refers to a specific candidate running for
  federal office
• It is within 30 days of election time
• It is publicly distributed

4
1st Amendment

• Congress shall make no law respecting an
  establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
  free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom
  of speech, or of the press or the right of the
  people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
  Government for a redress of grievances.

5
Overview

• Citizens United released a documentary critical
  of Hillary Clinton
• Available as video-on-demand
• They wouldnt come across it channel surfing
• Non-profit
• It was to be shown within 30 days of elections
• Citizens United argued that this ban should not
  apply to their documentary, as it would be
  unconstitutional.

6
Citizens United

• Citizens United first argued on narrower grounds
  that S441B might not even apply
• The documentary was not an electioneering
  communication
• Therefore, applying the rules prohibiting this
  speech would be unconstitutional
• The documentary does not explicitly solicit votes
  against Hillary Clinton
• S441B should not apply to these video-on-demand
  movies, and should have an exception for
  non-profit corporate speech funded by individuals

7
Citizens United

• Citizens United is largely (but not completely)
  funded by individual donations. Therefore,
  theyre not using private corporate expenditures.
  
• Citizens United then argued on broader grounds
• Government (FEC) is violating the 1st amendment
  rights of corporations to free speech
• To resolve the case, they were looking to the
  ruling about suppression of speech
• the holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
  Commerce

8
Verdict

• S441B is overruled, so corporate individual
  expenditures cant be limited
• (a) the constitution said that government would
  not ban speech, but 441B is a ban on speech.
• (b) the courts recognize that the first amendment
  applies to corporations
• So corporations are not vastly different from
  individuals under the law and morality?

9
Implications

• You cant fine or jail an individual (or
  association of individuals) for engaging in
  political speech, but 441B would let the
  government fine or jail individuals in
  association with corporations.
• The governments reasoning is flawed.
• All the reasons and problems point to abandoning
  441B. It is no longer up-to-date, and there are
  many ways around it.

10
Stakeholders

• Citizens United
• General Public
• Government
• FEC
• Hillary Clinton

11
Ethical Issues

• How does this affect the right to free speech?
• Should it apply consistently to corporations the
  same as individuals, or should different types of
  corporations and situations should have different
  rules?
• What are the boundaries on speech prior to an
  election?

12
Ethical Issues

• Utilitarain Approach a particular action is
  right or wrong based upon the consequences of the
  action
• Deontological Approach actions are morally right
  or wrong independent of consequences (rule-based)

13
Ethical Issues

• Moral Pluralism and the Law
• A diversity of moral principles of what is
  right or wrong
• Should we equate the legal
• with the ethical?

14
Our Evaluation of Alternatives

• Get rid of 441B and support the Supreme Court
  Decision
• Keep 441B and limit the rights of corporations
• Revise 441B to make it more clear, up-to-date,
  and all-encompassing

15
Choice of Alternative

• 2

Uphold S441B Limit Expenditure
16
Questions? Comments?