Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 471

310 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

Syllabus 

CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION
 
COMMISSION
 

appeal from the united states district court for the 
district of columbia 

No.  08–205.  Argued  March  24,  2009—Reargued  September  9,  2009–– 
Decided January 21, 2010 

As  amended  by  § 203  of  the  Bipartisan  Campaign  Reform  Act  of  2002 
(BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their 
general  treasury  funds  to  make  independent  expenditures  for  speech 
that  is  an  “electioneering  communication”  or  for  speech  that  expressly 
advocates  the  election  or  defeat  of  a  candidate.  2  U. S. C.  § 441b.  An 
electioneering communication is “any broadcast, cable, or satellite com­
munication”  that  “refers  to  a  clearly  identiﬁed  candidate  for  Federal 
ofﬁce”  and  is  made  within  30  days  of  a  primary  election,  § 434(f)(3)(A), 
and  that  is  “publicly  distributed,”  11  CFR  § 100.29(a)(2),  which  in  “the 
case  of  a  candidate  for  nomination  for  President  .  .  .  means”  that 
the  communication  “[c]an  be  received  by  50,000  or  more  persons  in  a 
State  where  a  primary  election  .  .  .  is  being  held  within  30  days,” 
§ 100.29(b)(3)(ii).  Corporations  and unions  may  establish  a political  ac­
tion committee  (PAC) for  express advocacy  or electioneering  communi­
cations  purposes.  2  U. S. C.  § 441b(b)(2).  In  McConnell  v.  Federal 
Election  Comm’n,  540  U. S.  93,  203–209,  this  Court  upheld  limits  on 
electioneering  communications  in  a  facial  challenge,  relying  on  the 
holding  in  Austin  v.  Michigan  Chamber  of  Commerce,  494  U. S.  652, 
that  political  speech  may  be  banned  based  on  the  speaker’s  corporate 
identity. 

In  January  2008,  appellant  Citizens  United,  a  nonproﬁt  corporation, 
released  a  documentary  (hereinafter  Hillary)  critical  of  then-Senator 
Hillary  Clinton,  a  candidate  for  her  party’s  Presidential  nomination. 
Anticipating  that  it  would  make  Hillary  available  on  cable  television 
through  video-on-demand  within  30  days  of  primary  elections,  Citizens 
United produced television ads to run on broadcast and cable television. 
Concerned  about  possible  civil  and  criminal  penalties  for  violating 
§ 441b, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that (1) § 441b 
is  unconstitutional  as  applied  to  Hillary;  and  (2)  BCRA’s  disclaimer, 
disclosure, and reporting requirements, BCRA §§ 201 and 311, were un­
constitutional  as  applied  to  Hillary  and  the  ads.  The  District  Court 
denied  Citizens  United  a  preliminary  injunction  and  granted  appellee 
Federal Election Commission (FEC) summary judgment.