CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND FREE SPEECH: FINDING THE RADICALISM IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC

• Published in: Harvard journal of law and public policy Vol. 41; no. 1; pp. 139 - 151
• Main Author: Smith, Bradley A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc 01.01.2018; Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy
• Subjects: Bans; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002-US; Campaign funds; Constitutional law; Economic aspects; Elections; Expenditures; Financial support; Freedom of speech; Internet; Juristic persons; Justice; Laws, regulations and rules; PAC; Political action committees; Political activity; Political advertising; Political aspects; Political campaigns; Political finance; Political participation; Politics; Production; Radicalism; Students; Supreme Court decisions; Voting rights; United States > US
• ISSN: 0193-4872; 2374-6572

I want you to envision that you're in the United States Supreme Court. Some of you have probably been there; you've seen the room: it's got the marble engravings behind it and so on, and the Justices are up there in their black robes. Malcolm Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, a very experienced man who's argued campaign finance cases before, is in the Supreme Court. He's arguing a case called Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. And during oral argument, Justice Alito finally leans over and asks if the authority to ban this broadcast ad might also apply to the Internet? Four Justices of the Supreme Court said that the US government can ban a documentary movie about a political candidate in an election year if at any point in the process of production or distribution or sales there's a corporation involved--as there always is, as there's been in every movie you've ever seen in your life, except home movies.