Citizens United v. FEC (New)

On December 13, 2007, Citizens United, a nonprofit membership corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the statutory provisions governing disclaimers on, and disclosure and funding of, certain "electioneering communications" (ECs). On January 15, 2008, the District Court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction, in which Citizens United requested that the court prevent the FEC from enforcing its electioneering communications provisions.

Background

An EC is a broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and is publicly distributed within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(A)(i) and 11 CFR 100.29(a). Corporations and labor organizations are generally prohibited from using their general treasury funds to finance ECs. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2) and 11 CFR 114.2(b)(2)(iii).

The Commission recently modified its regulations governing the funding of ECs by corporations and labor organizations in response to the Supreme Court's decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL II). In that case the Supreme Court held that because the ads in question were not the "functional equivalent of express advocacy," the prohibition on corporate or labor organization funding of ECs was unconstitutional as applied to WRTL's ads. The Court further held that a communication is the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" only if it "is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

The FEC revised its rules to provide a general exemption from the prohibition on corporate and labor organization funding of ECs unless the communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified federal candidate. The revised regulations do not exempt any ECs from the reporting and disclaimer requirements.

Complaint

Citizens United is a nonprofit membership organization registered with the IRS under 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(4). One of Citizens United's activities is the production and distribution of political films. Citizens United has produced a film entitled "Hillary: The Movie" about Senator Hillary Clinton. Citizens United intends to broadcast television ads promoting "Hillary: The Movie" and wishes to make the film available in theaters, through DVD sales and via home viewing through cable video-on-demand systems.

Citizens United asserts that, since the ads are not subject to the EC corporate funding restriction, it is unconstitutional to require disclosure of the donors who paid for the advertisements or disclaimers on the advertisements. Citizens United also claims that the film itself is constitutionally exempt from the corporate funding restriction under WRTL II.

Relief

Citizens United asks the court to declare the EC disclosure and disclaimer requirements unconstitutional as applied to Citizens United's ads and all electioneering communications now permitted by WRTL II. Additionally, the plaintiff requests that the corporate and union EC funding restriction be declared unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to plaintiff's movie. Citizens United seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the Commission from enforcing each of these provisions. The plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys fees and any other appropriate relief.

Preliminary injunction decision

The district court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction. In order for a court to grant the plaintiff a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must show 1) that it is likely that the plaintiff will have success when the case is decided on the merits; 2) that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; 3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other parties; and 4) that the injunction would benefit the public interest.

With regard to its claims about the movie itself, the court found that Citizens United had little chance of success on the merits because the movie is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote against Senator Clinton. Thus, the court held that the movie is the functional equivalent of express advocacy and not entitled to exemption from the ban on corporate funding of electioneering communications.

Regarding the proposed ads, Citizens United argued that the EC disclosure and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in WRTL so narrowed the constitutionally permissible scope of "electioneering communication" that only communications that are not "susceptible of [a] reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate" can be regulated by Congress. The district court, however, held that the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had found the disclosure requirements constitutional as to all electioneering communications, and WRTL did not disturb this holding because the "only issue in [WRTL] was whether speech that did not constitute the functional equivalent of express advocacy could be banned during the relevant pre-election period." Thus, the district court held that Citizens United had not established the probability that it will prevail on the merits of its arguments against the electioneering communication disclosure and disclaimer provisions.

Given that Citizens United did not show that it was likely to win its arguments on the merits, the district court did not find that the harms Citizens United claimed it would suffer under the disclaimer and disclosure requirements warranted preliminary relief. The court also found that enjoining the enforcement of the electioneering communication provisions at issue would not serve the public interest "in view of the Supreme Court's determination that the provisions assist the public in making informed decisions, limit the coercive effect of corporate speech, and assist the FEC in enforcing contribution limits." The court denied Citizens United's request for a preliminary injunction with regard to the reporting and disclaimer provisions.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:07CV2240.