Judgments

CITIZENS UNITED VS FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United Vs Federal Election Commission (2010) that restrictions on independent spending by Corporations and Unions in elections is violative of First Amendment of the Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 2002 also known as McCain-Feingold Act prohibited Corporations and Unions from making independent expenditures within 30 days of primary election and 60 days of general election.

Citizen United produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during 2008 presidential primaries. Citizen Untied was willing to air the documentary but was facing restrictions due to Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 2002.

Citizen United challenged the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 2002 on the ground that it violated its First Amendment Rights.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court held that the Government cannot restrict independent spending by Corporations, Unions and Association for political communications including political ads. The Supreme Court observed that spending money on political communication is protected under First Amendment of the Constitution.  First Amendment applies equally to individuals, Corporations and Unions. Government has no standing to determine who will speak during elections. More speeches, rather than restrictions, during elections will give diverse perspective to voters and enrich political discourse.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that independent expenditure could lead to corruption. The Court reiterated that no quid pro quo is involved in the case independent expenditure.

The Supreme Court upheld the disclosure requirements under the Act on the ground that it will bring transparency in political spending.

The Supreme Court also overruled Austin Vs. Michigan Chambers of Commerce (1990) and McConnel Vs. Federal Election Commission (2003) wherein restrictions on corporate public expenditures had been upheld.

DISSENTING OPINION

Dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice Stevens. It was observed that Corporations and individuals cannot be compared. Corporations have vast financial resources and can cause political corruption. Individual voices may be suppressed. Corporate expenditures without any restriction may undermine public trust in elections.

IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT

Citizen United judgment has caused increased political spending by Corporations and Unions. It has resulted in formation of Super PACs which can spend huge amount of money in elections. Critics point out that the influence of wealthy corporations and unions have increased in elections at the expense of individuals.

_______________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *