In the wake of 2008, a non-profit oriented organization (Citizens United), composed and produced a documentary movie known as “Hillary: The Movie.” The documentary criticized the suitability and competency of Hilary Clinton (the senator at that particular period) to run as a presidential candidate. The organization aimed at distributing the documentary via different outlets that included theaters and Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs). Later on, the corporation realized that in order to reach a large public audience, it needed to avail the documentary using the video-on-demand portal. The initial steps of public awareness concerning the documentary involved the adoption of ...view middle of the document...
Additionally, those who prepare the coverage aim to either tarnish or polish the image of the candidate publicly. The ways of distributing such information includes cable, broadcast and satellite channels. The United States constitution prohibits electioneering statement (2 U.S.C. § 441b and 11 CFR § 100.29(a) (2)); moreover, when Citizens United realized that 2 U.S.C. § 441b blocked its intended actions, it decided to challenge the limits of the article through a judicial system. This research paper aims at analysing the proceedings of the case and its effects on the nation. It takes a controversial research into the authenticity of the case and establishes the appropriation of the verdict based on the constitutional providence. The case takes a controversial verdict, moreover; it defines the future of electioneering in the United States; therefore it needs a close-up analysis to discern both its short-term and long-term benefits and misgivings.
Summary of the court proceedings
The corporation filed a case against the Federal Elections Commission. The judicial proceedings took place in the federal district court. The aggrieved in late 2007 sought injunctions to prohibit the application of the article on Hillary: The Movie. It argued in court that the restrictions of the article towards the documentary represented an outright unconstitutional restriction. Unfortunately, the federal district court refused the injunctions and passed the judgmental synopsis to the Federal Elections Commission. Furthermore, the corporation stressed that the extent of coverage of the BCRA’s laws should exempt its documentary because the article’s disclosure and disclaimer necessities seem unconstitutional in this context. Moreover, it said that the BCRA’s regulations present an absurd situation in the advertisement and promotion of the documentary.
Under the amended act, the BCRA § 311states that an electioneering speech airing on the television and focusing on a particular candidate needs to show a plain, readable disclosure (disclaimer) accompanying the program for a period of about four seconds. The advert needs a separate source of funding other than the vying candidate. The disclaimer serves the purpose of identifying the either the corporation or the person liable for the television commercial. Another additional information required includes the address of the responsible entity and a clear statement which exempts the involvement of the candidate whatsoever in the electioneering statement. Also, the BCRA § 201 requires the party that finances the electioneering statement by spending more than ten thousand dollars in a given fiscal year to sign the terms of the disclaimer statement with the Federal Elections Commission under article § 434(f)(1).
The terms involve quoting correctly the party that finances the electioneering statement (the source of finances), the required amount of money, the vying candidate targeted by the statement and associated auxiliary...