In order for a court to grant the plaintiff a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must show 1) that it is likely that the plaintiff will have success when the case is decided on the merits; 2) that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; 3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other parties; and 4) that the injunction would benefit the public interest. This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public. Citizens United asks the court to declare the EC disclosure and disclaimer requirements unconstitutional as applied to Citizens United's ads and all electioneering communications now permitted by WRTL II. § 441d (PDF), Citizens foresaw that its movie and advertising might be considered electioneering communications subject to BCRA's sections 201, 203 and 311.  It therefore sought an injunction to block the FEC from enforcing those sections on the grounds they violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  BCRA’s section 403 sets rules for constitutional challenges to its provisions.  Such claims are to be adjudicated by a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Appeals from this court go directly to the United States Supreme Court.  2 U.S.C.

Selon l'opinion majoritaire, rédigée par le juge Anthony Kennedy et soutenue par le Chief Justice John Roberts et les juges conservateurs Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia et Clarence Thomas, cette décision découle du premier amendement de la Constitution des États-Unis, qui protège la liberté d'expression[2]. Additionally, the plaintiff requests that the corporate and union EC funding restriction be declared unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to plaintiff's movie.

Citizens’ plans potentially conflicted with sections 201, 203 and 311 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), Pub. On December 13, 2007, Citizens United, a nonprofit membership corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the statutory provisions governing disclaimers on, and disclosure and funding of, certain "electioneering communications" (ECs). Avec Citizens United v. FEC, la Cour a entièrement renversé Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (en) (1990) et a partiellement renversé McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (en) (2003), qui avait soutenu la constitutionnalité du Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act de 2002 régulant le financement des campagnes électorales[3]. American Political Ideologies and Beliefs, Political Participation, Writing for AP Gov. 0000009095 00000 n Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. Thus, the court held that the movie is the functional equivalent of express advocacy and not entitled to exemption from the ban on corporate funding of electioneering communications. External Link Disclaimer | Au contraire, malgré le soutien d'importants super PACS, Scott Walker ou Jeb Bush n'arrivent pas à percer[12]. Posted by Elizabeth Evans, NBCT on 19 Oct 2018. 18, 2008), Briefs on original questions and September 9, 2009 reargument (external link), Transcript of March 24, 2009 Oral Argument, Order restoring case to the calendar for reargument on September 9, 2009 (see page 2), Transcript of September 9, 2009 Oral Argument (PDF), Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) (external link), McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (external link), Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), Pub. x�b```b``������� Ȁ �@16�@#XH"���� p� The U. S. Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, will test the constitutionality of important elements of federal campaign finance legislation.  How the Court rules could significantly alter the government’s ability to regulate federal political campaign funding and set limits for future campaign financing reform efforts.  The Supreme Court heard the case’s oral argument on March 24, 2009 but did not produce an opinion during the term that ended in June.  A reargument on certain issues was heard on September 9, 2009. �b1 The district court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction. L'influence réelle des super PACs sur les élections est difficilement estimée[9]. 2 U.S.C. 2031 0 obj <> endobj Indépendamment de leur efficacité, l'arrêt a contribué à une forte augmentation des dépenses électorales aux États-Unis. 0000010993 00000 n The court also found that enjoining the enforcement of the electioneering communication provisions at issue would not serve the public interest "in view of the Supreme Court's determination that the provisions assist the public in making informed decisions, limit the coercive effect of corporate speech, and assist the FEC in enforcing contribution limits." Citizens appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of BCRA sections 201, 203 and 311.  Brief for Appellant Citizens United (external link) (PDF). 0000005857 00000 n 2d 274 (D.D.C. Essay In the highly debated 2010 case, Citizens United v. Discussing Citizens United. Discussing Citizens United. %%EOF The district court denied this motion and granted summary judgment to the FEC. En avril 2014, dans l’arrêt McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (en), la Cour suprême juge également contraire au premier amendement le plafonnement des dons effectués par un particulier en faveur de plusieurs candidats, fixé à 123 200 dollars par cycle électoral de deux ans[14],[15]. Corporations and labor organizations are generally prohibited from using their general treasury funds to finance ECs. Lors des campagnes suivant l'arrêt de la Cour suprême, les super PACS dépensent des millions de dollars pour notamment diffuser des publicités négatives à l'encontre des opposants à leur champion[8]. 5–4 decision for Citizens United majority opinion by Anthony M. Kennedy.

L. No. Citizens United intends to broadcast television ads promoting "Hillary: The Movie" and wishes to make the film available in theaters, through DVD sales and via home viewing through cable video-on-demand systems. 0000004242 00000 n 0000005332 00000 n Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site. The plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys fees and any other appropriate relief. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. (2007) (WRTL), the high court held that advertisements only constitute express advocacy or its functional equivalent if they are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”  The district court held that Citizens’ movie was the “functional equivalent of express advocacy”—its critique of Clinton’s presidential character, candidacy, and qualifications was intended to influence voters that she should not be elected. After hearing arguments on the case in March 2004, the Supreme Court did not render an opinion on the case. § 441b(b)(2) (PDF) Permissible “electioneering communications” are subject to BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements under sections 201 and 311. ». 2008).  The court noted that the Supreme Court upheld BCRA’s section 203 in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 115 (2003) (external link) and rejected the argument that the funding of electioneering communications “constituting express advocacy or its functional equivalent” is protected under the Constitution’s  First Amendment.  “As applied” challenges--specific applications of the law to certain communications--are a different matter.  In FEC v.Wis. §501(c)(4). (PDF)  See also the Federal Election Commission publication Federal Election Campaign Laws.). 0000009778 00000 n 0000000016 00000 n Ainsi, alors qu'un milliard de dollars est dépensé lors de l'élection présidentielle américaine de 2008, plus de deux milliards sont dépensés en 2012 et trois milliards en 2016[13]. Elle maintient toutefois la limitation des dons de particuliers à 5 200 dollars par candidat[14]. On Friday, I assigned Citizens United v. FEC. ), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions. L. No. F.E.C., the Supreme Court ruled that political spending is a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment and that government may not inhibit corporations, or likewise, from spending money in support or denouncement of individual candidates. An official website of the United States government. trailer 0000080846 00000 n Section 201 of BCRA contains a donor disclosure provision for electioneering communications.  Persons who disburse an aggregate of $10,000 or more a year for the production and airing of electioneering communications are required to file a statement with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  The statement must include the names and addresses of persons who have contributed in excess of $1,000 to accounts funding the communication.  2 U.S.C.

The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. 08–205. 2 U.S.C. La candidate Elizebeth Warren refuse pendant les primaires démocrates les dons de grands donateurs et critique en plein débat, le 20 décembre 2019 le candidat Pete Buttigieg pour avoir organisé une levée de fonds dans la cave d'un prestigieux vignoble californien, propriété d'un milliardaire[17]. The wonderful world.

Posted by Elizabeth Evans, NBCT on 19 Oct 2018. Yes. §441b? The Austin (external link) opinion held that a Michigan law that prohibited non-media corporations from using general funds to make political contributions, requiring such contributions to be made through “separate segregated funds” set up for political purposes, was constitutional. §§ 431 – 455 (PDF), About | Citizens United v. FEC, 2008 US Dist (DC) 39 (07-2240 Jan. 15, 2008), Citizens United v. FEC, 2008 US Dist (DC) 40 (07-2240 Jan. 16, 2008), Citizens United v. FEC, 2008 US Dist (DC) 65 (07-2240 Jul. 81 (2002), Chapter 14 to Title 2 to the United States Code, , 2008 US Dist (DC) 39 (07-2240 Jan. 15, 2008), , 2008 US Dist (DC) 40 (07-2240 Jan. 16, 2008), , 2008 US Dist (DC) 65 (07-2240 Jul. 81 (2002), Federal Election Campaign Laws, 2 U.S.C. On January 15, 2008, the District Court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction, in which Citizens United requested that the court prevent the FEC from enforcing its electioneering communications provisions. 107–155, 116 Stat. The wonderful world. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:07CV2240. 1050 First Street, NE Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Bien que les super PACs soient censés être indépendants des candidats, ils comptent souvent dans leurs rangs d'anciens membres des équipes de campagne des candidats[8],[9]. Washington, DC 20463, Federal Election Commission | United States of America, MUR 5888: Failure to file timely under Millionaires' amendment. The revised regulations do not exempt any ECs from the reporting and disclaimer requirements. 0000007676 00000 n La Cour suprême enterre ainsi une des dispositions de la loi McCain-Feingold (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act de 2002) sur le financement des campagnes électorales qui prévoyait que toute organisation ayant le statut de corporation, qu'elle soit à but lucratif ou non, ne pouvait participer à la diffusion télévisée de messages faisant mention d'un candidat dans les soixante jours précédant une élection générale et les trente jours précédant une élection primaire[2],[3],[4]. Donate

107–155, 116 Stat. 0000012083 00000 n 2 U.S.C. The court denied Citizens United's request for a preliminary injunction with regard to the reporting and disclaimer provisions. 30101 et seq.

AP.GOPO: PRD‑2 (EU), PRD‑2.E (LO), PRD‑2.E.1 (EK), PRD‑2.E.2 (EK), PRD‑2.E.3 (EK) A high-level overview of how the organization, finance, and strategies of campaigns impact the election process. 0000016307 00000 n