Citizens United is a non-profit, conservative corporation that attempted to air a documentary, entitled “Hillary: The Movie”. Means of distributing this documentary, are qualified as methods of public distribution. Because the film was publicly distributed within thirty days of a primary election and also considered to be an electioneering communication (broadcasted ads) Citizens United was found to be in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
The large part of the debate within the case is that Citizens United is apart of the Sierra Club. This would cause the advertisement to be deemed as a …show more content…
Valeo is the most important Supreme Court case to consider in this case. The Buckley case determined that it was unconstitutional to set limitations on expenditures, which were considered to be legitimate forms of speech, this would cause a violation in the first amendment. The defense of Buckley brings up the issue that individual citizens are needed for the whole in the decision-making process for democracies. With this argument, and to the majority opinion in Citizens United v. F.E.C., it is unacceptable to limit expenditures, which are correlated to political speech. The expenditures from third party individuals, and now corporations, that wish to spend on campaigns are protected, which many take as the original interpretation of the Buckley case used to back Citizens