Supreme Court Case Study

“Democracy in America is over” (Grayson). The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Citizens United leads us further down a path that will leave everyday citizens disenfranchised and wealthy, private interests more powerful than ever. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court by Citizens United after lower courts declared their film, “Hillary”, illegal under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It was considered independent spending on what is essentially political propaganda attacking Hillary Clinton and spending falling into this category made within 30 days of an election is illegal under the BCRA. Citizens United claimed that the part of the law they were said to be in violation of was unconstitutional and limited their free speech and that they were not in violation anyway, since their advertising was not done by direct

There is little precedent supporting their decision except a strong push from certain interest groups and people who wish to expand the territory of the first amendment. It is strange to many that the court would act so contrarily to their ruling in McConnell vs. FEC, but there are a few key differences between the cases that may have changed the narrowly won decision for both cases. Most notably, Citizens United was producing a film that could arguably have more lasting and historical power than the contested pieces from McConnell vs. FEC, so it may be more reasonable to move it from the category of political advertising. Both cases were decided with narrow 5 to 4 margins, so this subtle difference went a long way in swaying opinion. The court also claimed that political speech under the first amendment could not be limited only because the speech came from a corporation and that funding of political broadcasts could not be limited if it is independently created and disclosed in accordance with the