Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 481.0

320  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

Clinton  by  name  and  depicts  interviews  with  political  com­
mentators  and  other  persons,  most  of  them  quite  critical  of 
Senator  Clinton.  Hillary  was  released  in  theaters  and  on 
DVD, but Citizens United wanted to increase distribution by 
making it available through video-on-demand. 

Video-on-demand allows digital cable subscribers to select 
programming  from  various  menus,  including  movies,  televi­
sion shows, sports, news, and music.  The viewer can watch 
the  program  at  any  time  and  can  elect  to  rewind  or  pause 
the  program.  In  December  2007,  a  cable  company  offered, 
for  a  payment  of  $1.2  million,  to  make  Hillary  available 
on  a  video-on-demand  channel  called  “Elections  ’08.”  App. 
255a–257a.  Some  video-on-demand  services  require  view­
ers  to  pay  a  small  fee  to  view  a  selected  program,  but  here 
the  proposal  was  to  make  Hillary  available  to  viewers  free 
of charge. 

To implement the proposal, Citizens United was prepared 
to  pay  for  the  video-on-demand;  and  to  promote  the  ﬁlm,  it 
produced  two  10-second  ads  and  one  30-second  ad  for  Hil­
lary.  Each ad includes a short (and, in our view, pejorative) 
statement  about  Senator  Clinton,  followed  by  the  name  of 
the movie and the movie’s Web site address.  Id., at 26a–27a. 
Citizens United desired to  promote the video-on-demand of­
fering  by  running  advertisements  on  broadcast  and  cable 
television. 

B 

Before  the  Bipartisan  Campaign  Reform  Act  of  2002 
(BCRA),  federal  law  prohibited—and  still  does  prohibit— 
corporations  and  unions  from  using  general  treasury  funds 
to  make  direct  contributions  to  candidates  or  independent 
expenditures  that  expressly  advocate  the  election  or  defeat 
of  a  candidate,  through  any  form  of  media,  in  connection 
with  certain  qualiﬁed  federal  elections.  2  U. S. C.  § 441b 
(2000  ed.);  see  McConnell,  supra,  at  204,  and  n.  87;  Federal 
Election  Comm’n  v.  Massachusetts  Citizens  for  Life,  Inc., 
479  U. S.  238,  249  (1986)  (MCFL).  BCRA  § 203  amended