- [Narrator] Hillary The Movie was a documentary
created by Citizens United, a non-profit corporation
designed to be a feature length attack on Hillary Clinton.
The movie sparked more than just political controversy
during the 2008 election.
It also led to a landmark United States
Supreme Court case about the regulation
of campaign spending by corporations.
Section 441B of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002 prohibits corporations from publicly advocating
for or against a candidate before an election.
The act authorized the Federal Election Commission
to enforce this prohibition.
Citizens United requested a preliminary injunction
against the Federal Election Commission
in an attempt to prevent the Commission
from applying the act to Hillary The Movie.
The non-profit argued that the act was
an unconstitutional restriction on political speech
by corporations and it therefore, violated
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The District Court denied the injunction
relying on precedent that had previously
upheld Section 441B as constitutional.
Using this special procedures under the act
Citizens United skipped the Court of Appeals
and petitioned directly to the United States Supreme Court.
The issue before the Supreme Court
was whether restrictions on independent expenditures
by corporations to expressly advocate for or against
a political candidate are constitutional
under the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech protections.
The court held that corporations have the right
to freedom of political speech
and that the government may not restrict
independent political expenditures
based on the speaker's corporate identity.
Previously, in Buckley versus Valeo,
in 1976, the court had indicated
that the First Amendment does not allow
political speech restrictions
based on a speaker's corporate identity.
In that case, the court drew a distinction between
pocket to pocket campaign contributions
which go from a corporation directly
to a political candidate.
And independent expenditures, which support
a particular candidate, but don't directly
go into the candidate's pocket.
The Buckley Court held that statutory limits
on corporate contributions are generally constitutional.
But restrictions on independent expenditures aren't.
But the court took a different tact
in Austin versus Michigan Chamber of Commerce in 1990.
In that case, the court found that corporate wealth
corrupts the political process.
And that corporation independent expenditures
to advocate for or against a political candidate
can be constitutionally restricted.
Writing for a five to four majority
Justice Kennedy determined that Austin went too far.
Millions of corporations, he noted,
don't have access to large amounts of wealth
to spend on political campaigns.
Kennedy further reasoned that political speech,
even from a corporation, is indispensable
to a well-functioning democracy.
Additionally, the court found no evidence
that corporate speech promotes corruption
of the political process.
Even if evidence of corruption existed
the government's interests in preventing corruption
doesn't outweigh the corporation's constitutionally
protected interests in free speech.
The court overruled Austin
and held that Section 441B
can't constitutionally restrict
independent expenditures by corporations
to support or oppose a political candidate.
The court revered the District Court's ruling
on the constitutionality of Section 441B
and remanded the case back to the District Court.
Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion.
Arguing that principals of stare decisis didn't justify
continued adherence to Austin.
Justice Stevens wrote an opinion dissenting in part
and concurring in part
stating that there is a serious need
to limit corporate political speech.
Stevens argued that the majority took
a radical departure from established First Amendment law.
According to Stevens, the framers were suspicious
of corporations, and intentionally gave corporations
less political speech protections than individuals.
The framers considered unlimited corporate speech
and large pools of corporate wealth
to be a lethal combination that would corrupt
the democratic process.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion
criticizing Stevens' dissent.
Scalia argued that the Framers didn't resent
corporations as they exist today.
The Framers merely resented the state granted
monopoly privileges that many corporations enjoyed
in the founding era.
Because these monopoly privileges no longer exist,
Scalia argued that the Framers wouldn't strip
today's corporations of the right to free speech.
Lastly, Justice Thomas filed an opinion
concurring in part, and dissenting in part.
Thomas agreed with the majority
but would have gone further.
He would have struck down the act's disclosure,
disclaimer, and reporting requirements, as well.
Citizens United versus the Federal Elections Commission
was a landmark case that paved the way
for giving corporations the same freedoms
of political speech that individuals enjoy.
The case caused substantial controversy.
With front row seats at President Obama's
2010 State of the Union Address
the nine justices listened
as President Obama criticized the courts ruling
for reversing a century of law
and allowing elections to be bankrolled
by the wealthiest corporations.