Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

1 Majority reversed

Austin arguing against

anticorruption, antidistortion, and shareholder-protection interests.

Majority decision penned by Justice Kennedy


Citizens United, a nonprot corporation, released a lm entitled Clinton. Federal law, however, prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for "electioneering communication." 2 U. S. C. 441b. An "electioneering communication" is dened as "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" that "refers to a clearly identied candidate for Federal oce" and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. 434(f)(3)(A). Limits on electioneering communications were also upheld in McConnel v.
tion Comm'n, Chamber of Commerce, Federal ElecMichigan Hillary: The Movie

(Hillary ). It is a documentary which discouraged the election of then-Senator Hillary

540 U. S. 93, 203-209 (2003) which was largely based on Austin v. 494 U. S. 652 (1990).
Austin

held that politcial speech may be


McConnell.

banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. Here, the Court was asked to reconsider
Austin

and, in eect,

Citizens United raised ve points in its arguments but later on waived the fth point. However, the Court found that it cannot resolve the case on the grounds raised by Citizens United without chilling political speechspeech that is central to the meaning and purpose of the First Amendment. In overturning
Austin,

the majority argued against three governmental interests posited

by the Government: antidistorition interest, anitcorruption interest, and shareholderprotection interest. It argued that if the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. Political speech is indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.
Austin

sought to defend the antidistortion rationale as a means to

prevent corporations from obtaining an "unfair advantage in the political marketplace" by using "resources amassed in the economic marketplace." 494 U. S., at 659. However, as a necessary consequence of the First Amendment, political speech cannot be limited based

on a speaker's wealth or identity. The


Buckley

Court found the anticorruption interest sufciently important to allow

limits on contributions but did not extend that reasoning to expenditure limits. Limits on independent expenditures have a chilling eect extending well beyond the Government's interest in preventing
quid pro quo

corruption. Thus, the anticorruption interest is not

sucient to displce the speech here in question. In arguing against the shareholder-protection interest, the Court reasoned that the potential disagreement of a shareholder with the political views of the corporation could give the Government the authority to restrict the media corporation's political speech. The First Amendment does not allow that power. Also, it argued that the statute is both underinclusive and overinclusive.

2 Supplementary opinion on judicial restraint and

decisis

stare

by Chief Justice Roberts


Chief Justice Roberts concurred with the majority decision writing a separate opinion to address the principles of judicial restraint and in the case. On judicial restraint, the determination of the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is "the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called upon to perform." The standard of practice is to refrain from addressing constitutional questions except when necessary. He armed that it is only because the majority rejected Citizens United's statutory claim that it proceeded to consider the group's constitutional arguments. On
stare decisis stare decisis

in relation to its application

, it is preferred because it promotes stability and a consistent developstare decisis

ment of legal principles. However, if adherence to a precedent actually impedes the stable and orderly adjudication of future cases, its
Austin

eect is also diminished. Thus,


Buckley, First Austin's

was overruled because rst, it was an "aberration" insofar as it departed from the 435 U. S. 765 (1978). Second, the validity of
Austin

protections the Court had granted political speeh in earlier cases, such as,
Nat. Bank of Boston v. Belloti,

ra-

tionale was controversial ever since. And third, express advocacy.

is uniquley destabilizing because it

threatened to subvert the Court's decisions even outside the particular context of corporate

3 Right to speech of individuals includes the right to speak in association with other individuals

by Justice Scalia
Justice Scalia argues against Justice Steven's dissent which purported to show that the decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent suggested that because the Framers didn't like corporations, the dissent concluded that corporations had no rights of free speech. Scalia acknowledged that the Framers recognized the right to free speech of individuals. As a corollary, the individual's right to speak includes the right to speak in association with other individual persons. Scalia criticized the dissent and pointed out that the First Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text oers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker: individuals, partnerships, associations or corporations.

Вам также может понравиться