lawyer who argued citizens united

Who supported Citizens United in the Citizens United case?

Olson is widely considered one of the best conservative lawyers in the country, but his views aren't uniformly right of center. He's a conservative hero for his work on Citizens United and Bush v....

What was the Citizens United case about?

Even Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who as US solicitor general argued the government’s case in Citizens United, acknowledged during oral arguments that …

What did the Supreme Court decide in Citizens United v Citizens United?

Apr 17, 2021 · The plaintiffs in the case — which include a conservative advocacy group closely associated with the billionaire Koch brothers, and the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative law firm that claims...

What is the Citizens United ad about?

The group sued and lost a case against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman over Schneiderman's demand that it disclose all its donors. Citizens United campaigned against Michael Moore 's 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11, advocating for government limits on how much advertising the film received.

What is Jim Bopp best known for?

What was the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United?

Is Citizens United a legitimate organization?

What did Citizens United argue?

What did the Citizens United case decide quizlet?

Who voted in Citizens United favor?

What is the term dark money mean?

Who argued for Citizens United?

Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson and First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams argued for Citizens United, and former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman defended the statute on behalf of various supporters. Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called it "one of the most important First Amendment cases in years".

Who argued that the government could ban political books?

During the original oral argument, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart (representing the FEC) argued that under Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the government would have the power to ban books if those books contained even one sentence expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate and were published or distributed by a corporation or labor union. In response to this line of questioning, Stewart further argued that under Austin the government could ban the digital distribution of political books over the Amazon Kindle or prevent a union from hiring an author to write a political book.

What did the FEC ruling do?

The ruling effectively freed labor unions, trust funds, and corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates.

What did Stevens argue in Buckley v. Valeo?

After recognizing that in Buckley v. Valeo the Court had struck down portions of a broad prohibition of independent expenditures from any sources , Stevens argued that nevertheless Buckley recognized the legitimacy of "prophylactic" measures for limiting campaign spending and found the prevention of "corruption" to be a reasonable goal for legislation. Consequently, Stevens argued that Buckley left the door open for carefully tailored future regulation. Although the majority echoed many of the arguments in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Stevens argued that the majority opinion contradicted the reasoning of other campaign finance cases—in particular, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission —and found it telling that the majority, when citing such cases, referenced mainly dissenting opinions.

What was the complaint against Hillary the movie?

In December 2007, Citizens United filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of several statutory provisions governing "electioneering communications". It asked the court to declare that the prohibition on corporate and union funding were facially unconstitutional, and also as applied to Hillary: The Movie, and to enjoin the Federal Election Commission from enforcing its regulations. Citizens United also argued that the Commission's disclosure and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the movie pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.. It also sought to enjoin funding, disclosure and disclaimer requirements as applied to Citizens United's intended ads for the movie.

How did Citizens United affect the Republican Party?

At least in the Republican Party, the Citizens United ruling has weakened the fund raising power of the Republican "establishment" in the form of the "three major" Republican campaign committees ( Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee ). Columnist Thomas B. Edsall notes that in 2008, "the last election before the Citizens United decision", the three campaign committees "raised six times" the money that "nonparty conservative organizations" did—$657.6 million vs. $111.9 million. By 2016 those party committees raised less than the independent groups—$652.4 million v. $810.4 million. Thus the new funding "freed candidates to defy" the party establishment, although not, it seems, to move policy making away from traditional Republican priorities.

What is the Federal Election Commission decision?

310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the relationship between campaign finance and free speech. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010.

Who argued the government's case in Citizens United?

Even Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who as US solicitor general argued the government’s case in Citizens United, acknowledged during oral arguments that under the regulations Bopp was challenging, a book about a candidate could theoretically be banned as an illegal advertisement.

What was Citizens United?

Citizens United was the culmination of years of work by Bopp to chip away at the nation’s campaign-finance regulations, often via obscure cases no one expected him to win. But Bopp’s not done—not by a long stretch.

Why did the Supreme Court take up the Arizona case?

One likely reason the Supreme Court took up the Arizona case in the first place has to do with a Bopp victory in the Eighth Circuit way back in 1994. Representing a right-to-life group, he helped invalidate a Minnesota public-financing scheme much like the Arizona law. That old decision set up the split between circuit-court rulings that allowed the Supreme Court to take up the Arizona case.

Why does Bopp argue that public funding suppresses speech?

Public funding, he argues, suppresses speech because it sets spending limits for candidates who accept it. “The problem is, the reformers are hoisting themselves on their own petard,” he explains. “Their real goal [with public-financing schemes] is to restrict expenditures.”

What was the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC?

Building on a key 1976 decision that campaign spending was a form of speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment, the justices in Citizens United v. FEC extended that protection to corporations. They ruled that corporations (which already are considered “persons” for many constitutional purposes) have First Amendment rights similar to those of average voters, and keeping them from spending money to support or defeat specific candidates is unconstitutional.

Which amendment protects campaign spending?

Building on a key 1976 decision that campaign spending was a form of speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment, the justices in Citizens United v. FEC extended that protection to corporations.

When did the Ninth Circuit uphold the Arizona law?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, rejected this line of thinking and upheld the Arizona law in May 2010. But in an unusual move a few days later, the Supreme Court blocked the distribution of public funds for Arizona candidates while it considered the appeal. For reformers, it was a sign that Bopp’s logic may once again prevail in the Roberts Court.

Which court case ruled that Alabama could not force the NAACP to disclose its members?

Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958), a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that Alabama could not force the NAACP to disclose its members, given the obvious danger to those members if their names were disclosed.

What mechanism does the Court use to sort through disclosure laws?

The second mechanism that the Court uses to sort through challenges to disclosure laws is that it ordinarily requires such challenges to be brought on an “as applied” basis, a mechanism that allows courts to pay special attention to the specific facts of an individual case.

How much was the NAACP fined in Alabama?

The Alabama court’s order, in other words, was a fairly transparent effort to shut down the NAACP’s operations in Alabama, either by terrorizing the organization’s members or by imposing crippling fines on the NAACP. The $100,000 fine imposed by the state court was roughly the equivalent of a $1 million fine in today’s dollars.

How many justices have left the Supreme Court?

Four of the eight justices who supported disclosure rules have since left the Court, and three of them were replaced by judges who are significantly more conservative than the person they replaced. Which brings us to Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

When will the Supreme Court hear the case of disclosure of donors?

Mario Tama/Getty Images. The Supreme Court will hear a major case on April 26 that could fundamentally alter the Court’s approach to laws requiring political organizations to disclose their donors — a change that could make it much easier for big spenders to hide the ways they seek to influence policy and elections.

What would happen if the NAACP complied?

Had the NAACP complied, it could have placed those members in grave danger. State officials could have turned over the list of members to the Ku Klux Klan. Or they may have disclosed them to racist employers who could have fired the NAACP’s members and blacklisted them from obtaining future employment.

What law barred Citizens United from advertising?

Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film. The case ( 08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009.

Who is Citizens United funded by?

Citizens United has accepted funding from The Presidential Coalition, LLC, and the Koch brothers.

What is Citizens United?

Citizens United (organization) Not to be confused with Americans United. ... Citizens United is a conservative 501 (c) (4) nonprofit organization in the United States founded in 1988. In 2010, the organization won a U.S. Supreme Court case known as Citizens United v.

Who called for Dennis Hastert to resign?

On October 2, 2006, in reaction to revelations of a cover-up of inappropriate communications between Republican Congressman Mark Foley and United States House of Representatives Page, Citizens United president David Bossie called on Dennis Hastert to resign over his role in covering up the scandal.

Who ran the Citizens United ad in 1988?

In the 1988 US presidential election, Citizens United ran an ad that used Willie Horton to attack Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis. The ad was described as racist by the progressive magazine Mother Jones. The group has produced a film criticizing the United Nations.

Who is the president of Citizens United?

FEC, which struck down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. The organization's current president and chairman is David Bossie.

Is Celsius 41.11 illegal?

However, the FEC held that paying to air Celsius 41.11 would constitute an illegal corporate campaign expenditure. In 2008, Citizens United produced a documentary film highly critical of Hillary Clinton called Hillary: The Movie.

How much money did Cunningham get for earmarking weapons?

Republican congressmen seem to go at a higher rate. Duke Cunningham had a schedule of bribes in his desk. The lowest amount was $140,000 for him to earmark your weapons system. So we know for sure that it takes a heck of a lot more money than $2,500 to unduly influence a Congressman, so our limits are just too low.

Who is James Bopp?

James Bopp is the lawyer who first represented Citizens United in the case that ended up in the Supreme Court, which ruled that corporations and unions could give money to political committees active in election campaigns. That decision and subsequent lower court decisions have led to SuperPACs, which allow corporations, ...

Can you vote against a super PAC?

We'll just vote against them, rather than, you know, having the corporation give the money to a superPAC. And you can't vote against a superPAC.

Do we need to limit contributions to candidates?

As to limits on contributions, sometimes when I'm cynical, I think, yes, we need to have contribution limits to candidates. Other times I'm more optimistic and see how well Indiana's working without any contribution limits to candidates, as well as I think 20 other states, and that there's no real corruption. The corruption is in the heavily-regulated and limited states with contribution limits. So, then I think well, maybe not; we don't need them. But one thing's for sure is that contribution limits are way too low. They are $2,500 and you can't even buy a Democrat congressman for $2,500. The anecdotal evidence is that it takes $99,000 in cold hard cash to buy a Democrat congressman. That was the amount Congressman Jefferson of New Orleans had in his freezer.

Do wealthy people control the issues?

So there are liberal - there are wealthy people on every side of every issue, so the wealthy people don't control the issues.

What is the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United has significantly altered not only the nation’s political landscape but also, at least for now, the level of political autonomy that employees have a right to expect in their workplace. In allowing corporations and unions to engage in independent political expenditures, the Court has effectively permitted them to bypass the regulatory regime that Congress created to protect employees from workplace political coercion. Congress should renew such protections, while still ensuring employers an effective opportunity to exercise the rights guaranteed by Citizens United. Such a statute would likely pass First Amendment review as a content-neutral regulation of conduct, particularly in light of the Court’s compelled-speech jurisprudence. Before more employers engage in such coercion, before more employees are forced to face a choice between losing their jobs or participating in political speech with which they disagree, Congress can and should act now.

What was the purpose of Citizens United?

One explicit goal of this framework was to protect employees against undue pressure from employers who might seek to coerce them into participating in certain political activities. Yet in ruling that corporations and unions have the right to make independent expenditures, the Supreme Court created a hole in that statutory scheme through which employers may legally require employee participation in their political activities.

Why is guarding against political coercion important?

Guarding against political coercion of employees serves important societal interests in both individual autonomy and robust public discourse. Moreover, this form of workplace protection is particularly justified because employees have an especially strong interest in avoiding coerced participation, whereas an employer’s legitimate associational interest in such coercion is limited.

What does Citizens United stand for?

at 977 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Ultimately, then, Citizens United appears to stand for the proposition that the government may not place special burdens on corporations (or, presumably, unions) that it does not place on similarly situated speakers.

Why can't corporations require employees to participate in political activities before Citizens United?

Corporations and unions could not require employees to participate in political activities before Citizens United because those entities were barred from such activities by § 441b (a). The statutory restriction was written broadly to encompass not only financial gifts but also “anything of value.” 13. ×.

Which case was the scope of a speaker's First Amendment rights?

106. Thomas v. Collins , 323 U.S. 516, 537–38 (1945); see also NLRB v. Va. Elec. & Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 477 (1941) (rejecting an employer’s First Amendment argument and holding that employees are entitled to the NLRA’s protection if “the total activities of an employer restrain or coerce his employees in their free choice”). Indeed, the scope of a speaker’s First Amendment rights falls far short of the ability to coerce others to participate. Speakers also are not constitutionally protected in communicating an objectionable message to a captive audience, 107

Can an employer require employees to participate in political activities?

Under current law, neither the Constitution nor federal statutes nor the laws of most states prevent employers from requiring their employees to participate in their political activities.

What is the Citizens United decision?

In fact, the Citizens United decision is grounded in repeated speculation, assertion, leaps of logic, selected use of dissents, exaggerated hypotheticals. and a complete indifference to the reality of elections.

Who said corporations are Jus' folk?

Corporations are Jus' Folks. The majority opinion used a lot of words to say what Anatole France pointed out in his mocking observation that "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alikes to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."

What is the majority's sense of consequence when it completely ignores both how corporations are granted special privileges of limited

The majority has no sense of consequence when it completely ignores both how a) corporations are granted special privileges of limited liability and perpetual life, unlike natural persons and b) can overwhelm and control elections and democracy by the weight of their wealth.

What did Justice Roberts argue about the First Amendment?

Justice Roberts's concurrence correctly, if somewhat defensively, concluded that precedent can occasionally be overturned, otherwise "segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants." Here he uses great progressive decisions vindicated by history -- and following a Civil War and Depression -- to justify giving corporations complete First Amendment rights for the first time in 221 years. As one measure of how far he had to reach to change constitutional law, it was Justice Rehnquist in a 1982 case for a unanimous court who wrote that Congress's "careful legislative adjustment of the federal electoral laws, in a cautious advance, step by step, to account for the particular legal and economic attributes of corporations...warrants considerable deference."

What laws prohibit corporate donations?

The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act specifically prohibited corporate and labor ad expenditures for or against candidates. 22 states also adopted similar provisions. One decision, Bellotti v. First National Bank of Boston (1978), did overturn a Massachusetts law that banned corporate ads in state referenda on the basis that there was no candidate to corrupt. And Kennedy repeatedly cited the infamous decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that overturned overall spending ceilings on candidates, not on interest groups.

Do courts have to decide a case before a decision?

All courts require that there be a real "case or controversy" before deciding a dispute between parties to avoid a majority of justices from deciding one day that it doesn't like some law or ruling and to assure that a real dispute be fully argued by interested parties. Not here. Roberts simply declared that there was "a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication" (a point he did not make in his confirmation hearings), even though not one corporation, union of State had petitioned the court since Austin to overturn that precedent. Or as Justice Stevens witheringly put it in his dissent, the court wasn't "asked to reconsider Austin " but rather "we have asked ourselves."

Will there be a backlash to the Dred Scott v. Plessy case?

And as Congress and the grassroots respond to this deeply radical result, there will be a backlash producing new laws or new justices that make clear that Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas will eventually enjoy the same reputations as those justices who passionately argued in Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson why the law required white supremacy.

Overview

Further court rulings

SpeechNow is a nonprofit, unincorporated association organized as a section 527 entity under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The organization was formed by individuals who seek to pool their resources to make independent expenditures expressly advocating the election or defeat of federal candidates. SpeechNow planned to accept contributions only from individuals, not corporations or other sources prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act. On February …

Case summary

Background

In the District Court

Arguments before the Supreme Court

Decision

Subsequent developments