Citizens United Appeals Case About Hillary: The Movie to U.S. Supreme Court

 

Yesterday, Citizens United filed its appeal with the United States Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. FEC, asking the Court to allow it to broadcast ads for its movie without having to comply with the disclosure requirements on “electioneering communications” contained in McCain-Feingold.

The appeal concerns Citizens United’s desire to broadcast television advertisements for its documentary titled Hillary: The Movie (hillarythemovie.com). Because the ads qualify as “electioneering communications” under McCain-Feingold, the FEC requires that Citizens United report its donors and put political disclaimers on the ads.

Citizens United objects to these regulations because the district court and Federal Election Commission agree that the advertisements are “genuine issue ads” that are fully protected from regulation by the First Amendment under the rationale of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) (“WRTL II”). Because the ads do not contain an "appeal to vote," they cannot be prohibited. As a result, Citizens is arguing that they also cannot be regulated in any way, including by requiring the disclosure of its donors.

Citizens United also appeals the decision of the district court that broadcasting the movie is prohibited by McCain-Feingold.

James Bopp, Jr., counsel for Citizens United states: “We believe the questions that this case raises are substantial, so that the Supreme Court should accept our appeal. These advertisements are protected by the First Amendment as issue ads and are beyond the legitimate reach of campaign finance laws. And the notion that a feature-length movie can be banned is a return to the days of government censorship and book-burnings. This movie has been shown in theaters and is sold on DVD by major national retailers, and it is accompanied by a published compendium book for which royalties were paid to Citizens United. It is not at all the same as the ‘ads’ that the Supreme Court considered in McConnell v. FEC when it facially upheld the prohibition on electioneering communications.”

Bopp has argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court, including WRTL II, in which the Court limited McCain-Feingold’s prohibition on electioneering communications in order to protect WRTL’s grassroots lobbying ads.

A copy of the Second Jurisdictional Statement filed with the Court, along with other case documents, can be found on the website for the James Madison Center for Free Speech at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org.