Citizens United v. FEC - Supreme Court Ruling

produced by Patryk Rebisz and Erinnisse Roerich Heuer

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United v. FEC in a 5-4 decision. The Court struck down the FECA prohibition on corporations and labor unions making Independent Expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of federal Candidates, or its functional equivalent.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• SCOTUS Ruling
• Citizens United v. FEC
• ReelFacts
• politics
• campaign finance reform
• money in politics

[2411Hellokitty]

Watch video AsJjlC3WaTY

Citizens united supporter wants those who disagree stripped of their right to vote and forced to take medication.

[sgpquek]

you're doing well until you pick the chinese as scapegoat to your worthwhile agenda. I suggest you be more educated universally as the word golbally will get you thinking in a bad way.

[kehvan]

Businesses, organizations and other groups are made of up people you dimwitted twit.

[AtibbsSPARTAN]

I think you are overhyping this case to the max. Companies already have commercials to try and spin our views. Are we really that stupid?

ACTUALLY READ MCCAIN FEINGOLD....it is a complete mess

[wespayne67]

This is shear propaganda, and blatantly dishonest at that.Watching this would make me feel sick... if I wasn't imagining this girl naked.

[mikerotcherson]

It's comically ironic that you call this "reel facts". Have a look at some real reel facts:

/watch?v=rUdFaIYzNwU

[sklanger]

See, e.g., Reagan v. Time ("Regulations which permit the Government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated under the 1st Amendment."). So yes, I'm right, and you're wrong.

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz And yet negative ads are protected by the 1st Amendment. The implication that such ads aren't a protected form of speech is merely another bit of nonsense from you. Worse, you imply that the government may censor films because of what you deem to be "negative" content -- classic content-based discrimination that is as a rule, unconstitutional as a basis for censorship.

[patrykrebisz]

@sklanger, yes, "you are right and i'm wrong"

[sklanger]

@patrykrebisz Whether or not it's a "genuine document" is not for the government to decide -- certainly not as a basis for censorship -- and would be unconstitutional viewpoint-based discrimination under the Court's 1st Amendment case law. I'm not sure you realize how difficult it is to argue with someone who is as generally ignorant of the law as you are.