Citizens United v. FEC Audiobook By The Supreme Court of the United States cover art

Citizens United v. FEC

Preview

Try for $0.00
Prime logo Prime members: New to Audible?
Get 2 free audiobooks during trial.
Pick 1 audiobook a month from our unmatched collection.
Listen all you want to thousands of included audiobooks, Originals, and podcasts.
Access exclusive sales and deals.
Premium Plus auto-renews for $14.95/mo after 30 days. Cancel anytime.

Citizens United v. FEC

By: The Supreme Court of the United States
Narrated by: uncredited
Try for $0.00

$14.95/month after 30 days. Cancel anytime.

Buy for $1.95

Buy for $1.95

Confirm purchase
Pay using card ending in
By confirming your purchase, you agree to Audible's Conditions of Use and Amazon's Privacy Notice. Taxes where applicable.
Cancel

About this listen

Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president. In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support. Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.

Public Domain (P)2014 Oyez, Inc
Political Science
activate_Holiday_promo_in_buybox_DT_T2

What listeners say about Citizens United v. FEC

Average customer ratings
Overall
  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    8
  • 4 Stars
    0
  • 3 Stars
    0
  • 2 Stars
    0
  • 1 Stars
    1
Performance
  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    8
  • 4 Stars
    0
  • 3 Stars
    0
  • 2 Stars
    0
  • 1 Stars
    1
Story
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    8
  • 4 Stars
    0
  • 3 Stars
    0
  • 2 Stars
    0
  • 1 Stars
    0

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.

Sort by:
Filter by:
  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars

It's not a story. This is history.

You can hear the arguments presented and the interactions between the attorneys and the nine supreme Court justices as a landmark case is decided that has had extraordinarily detrimental impacts on politics in this country.

Regardless of your political position, it's intriguing to hear the strategies employed by both the solicitor general in defending existing policies and the attorney for Citizens United looking to overturn Austin and McConnell.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars

Key first amendment case

This item is the oral arguments before the Supreme Court (and at the end, the reading of the opinions from the bench by certain justices) in a key first amendment case involving campaign finance laws and the speech interests of corporations and unions. This decision had a big impact on the law of free speech in the United States and on how corporations, unions, and other entities can attempt to influence elections. In this case, Citizens United v Federal Election Comm'n (2010), the Supreme Court struck down a federal law as applied to speech by a non-profit corporation in the form of a 90 minute movie criticizing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries. The court cited Justice Holmes's concept that government ought not regulate the "marketplace of ideas." The court upheld disclosure requirements for sponsors of ads. The case did not reach the ban on contributions by corporations and unions to candidate campaigns and political parties.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful