Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

Re-arguments ordered in Supreme Court campaign finance case

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday ordered re-argument in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission should be overturned in deciding the case. Both cases deal with the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) argues allows them to regulate the release of and advertising for a 90-minute documentary, questioning then-Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) qualifications to serve as US president. Petitioner Citizens United, a non-profit conservative advocacy corporation who produced the film, appealed on broad First Amendment grounds a decision by the US District Court for the District of Columbia, which held that the movie was "electioneering communication" within the meaning of BCRA. The Court originally heard oral arguments in March. The government had argued the Court's decisions in McConnell and Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life allowed them to regulate the video because it was funded by a corporation and could not reasonably be interpreted as anything other than an appeal to vote against Clinton. Citizens United argued that the movie was the kind of "robust, uninhibited debate about a subject of intense political interest" that the First Amendment was designed to protect.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on June 29, 2009 (boomark / email).