Citizens United, a nonprofit Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) tax-exempt corporation, produced a 90-minute documentary regarding a presidential candidate, then-Senator Hillary Clinton. The group released the film in theaters and on DVD, and planned to make it available through video-on-demand. In addition, Citizens United planned to fund three broadcast and cable television advertisements to promote the movie. Concerned that both the film and its ads would be prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which imposes civil and criminal penalties, Citizens United filed suit in U.S. district court. Specifically, the group sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from enforcing Sections 203, 201, and 311 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). These provisions of law amended the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in order to regulate "electioneering communications." BCRA defines "electioneering communication" as any broadcast, cable, or satellite transmission made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election (sometimes referred to as the "blackout periods") that refers to a candidate for federal office and is targeted to the relevant electorate. Section 311 of BCRA, known as the disclaimer provision, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441d, requires electioneering communications to include a statement identifying the funding source of the communication. Section 201, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 434, requires any person who spends more than $10,000 on electioneering communications in a year to file disclosure statements with the FEC. Section 203, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441b, prohibits corporate and labor union treasury funds from being spent for electioneering communications. The group argued that Section 203 of BCRA violated the First Amendment on its face and as applied to its movie and advertisements. In addition, Citizens United maintained that Sections 201 and 311, requiring disclosure and identification of funding sources, were unconstitutional as applied to the television ads. In a 2003 decision, McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 203, 201, and 311 in a facial challenge. In a 2007 decision, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL II), the Supreme Court limited the applicability of Section 203 by ruling that the prohibition could not constitutionally apply to advertisements that may reasonably be interpreted as something other than an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate, and that such ads are not the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the request by Citizens United for a preliminary injunction, finding that the BCRA provisions in question had previously been upheld by the Supreme Court as regulation that does not unconstitutionally burden First Amendment free speech rights. Likewise, the court found that the group's as-applied claim would also fail on the merits because the movie did not focus on legislative issues, but instead took a position on the candidate's character, qualifications, and fitness for office, thereby falling within the FEC's regulatory definition of an electioneering communication. The court concluded that Supreme Court precedent upholding Section 203 applied to Citizens United to the extent that it prohibited the group from funding electioneering communications that constituted the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The court also found that BCRA's disclosure requirements were constitutional. Citizens United appealed. BCRA provides that if an action is brought to challenge the constitutionality of any of its provisions, a final decision from the district court shall be reviewable only by direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Citizens United v. FEC on March 24, 2009, and re-argument on September 9. For the re-argument, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether the Court should overrule its earlier holdings in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, upholding the constitutionality of a state statute prohibiting corporate campaign expenditures, and the portion of its decision in McConnell v. FEC upholding the facial validity of Section 203 of BCRA. In a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC invalidated two provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441b. It struck down the long-standing prohibition on corporations using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures, and Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which amended FECA, prohibiting corporations from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications." The Court determined that these prohibitions constitute a "ban on speech" in violation of the First Amendment. In so doing, the Court overruled its earlier holding in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, finding that it provided no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures; and the portion of its decision in McConnell v. FEC upholding the facial validity of Section 203 of BCRA, finding that the McConnell Court relied on Austin. The Court, however, upheld the disclaimer and disclosure requirements in Sections 201 and 311 of BCRA as applied to the movie that Citizens United produced and the broadcast advertisements it planned to run promoting the movie. According to the Court, while they may burden the ability to speak, disclaimer and disclosure requirements "impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities." It does not appear that the Court's ruling in Citizens United affects the validity of Title I of BCRA, which generally bans the raising of soft, unregulated money by national parties and federal candidates or officials, and restricts soft money spending by state parties for "federal election activities." Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy began consideration of the case by examining whether Citizens United's claim, that the corporate expenditure prohibition was unconstitutional as applied to its film, could be resolved on other, narrower grounds. Disputing Citizens United's contention that the prohibition, codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441b, does not apply because its film does not qualify as an "electioneering communication," the Court found that the message of the film was the functional equivalent of express advocacy. As explained by the Court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL II) , a communication is the functional equivalent of express advocacy "only if [it] is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate." Applying that standard, the Supreme Court determined that there is no reasonable interpretation of the film other than an appeal to vote against then-Senator Clinton for President. The movie is a "feature-length negative advertisement that urges viewers to vote against Senator Clinton for President," and therefore, the Court concluded, triggers the applicability of § 441b. Rejecting Citizens United's argument that video-on-demand has a lower risk of distorting the political process than television ads, the Court cautioned that the judiciary must decline to make determinations as to which modes of communication are preferred for particular types of messages and speakers. Such determinations, the Court cautioned, would require protracted litigation and risk chilling protected speech. In response to Citizens United's request for the Court to carve out an exception to § 441b's expenditure prohibition for nonprofit corporate political speech funded primarily by individuals, the Court determined that such a holding would result in courts making "intricate case-by-case determinations," an interpretation it also declined to adopt. Accordingly, the Court concluded that it could not resolve the case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech that is "central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment." The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Citing several of its precedents that have invalidated restrictions on First Amendment free speech—such as laws requiring permits and impounding royalties—the Court contrasted those restrictions with the "outright ban" on speech imposed by § 441b, which also imposes criminal penalties. Furthermore, the Court determined that even though FECA permits a corporation to establish a political action committee (PAC) in order to make expenditures, § 441b nonetheless constitutes a complete ban on the speech of a corporation . "A PAC is a separate association from the corporation," the Court observed, and allowing a PAC to speak does not "somehow" translate into allowing a corporation to speak. Enumerating the "onerous" and "expensive" reporting requirements associated with PAC administration, the Court announced that even if a PAC could permit a corporation to speak, "the option to form a PAC does not alleviate the First Amendment problems associated with § 441b." In addition, in view of the fact that a PAC must comply with such burdensome restrictions "just to speak," the Court found that a corporation may not have sufficient time to establish a PAC in order to communicate its views in a given campaign. As a law that bans free speech, the Court explained that it is subject to a "strict scrutiny" analysis, requiring the government to demonstrate that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." Employing that analytical framework, the Court first observed that in its jurisprudence, it has previously determined "that First Amendment protection extends to corporations." Furthermore, the Court noted, this protection has been extended in its holdings to political speech. Quoting from its 1978 decision in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court announced, "[u]nder the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection 'simply because its source is a corporation.'" "The Court has thus rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not 'natural persons.'"