Question

How has the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision changed campaigns in America? (long answer is appreciated please help)

Answer 1

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which case the United States. On 21 January 2010, the Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that laws preventing corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent "electioneering communications" (political advertising) infringed the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. In doing so, the court invalidated Section 203 of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known for its sponsors as the McCain-Feingold Act, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold, as well as Section441(b) of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which had been amended by the BCRA.

The decision, which was immediately perceived as historically important, generated intense controversy outside the court. Many hailed it as a resounding freedom of speech victory, while others dismissed it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite campaign finance law. Pres was one of the opponents. Barack Obama, who commented at the House of Representatives in his State of the Union speech a week ago that the decision would "open the floodgates for special interests. to invest without limit in our elections.

In spite of fines being imposed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Citizens United requested an injunction in the United States. District Court in Washington, D.C., arguing that Section 203 was unconstitutional as applied to Hillary because the movie did not meet the law's concept of electioneering contact and because it did not constitute' direct campaigning or its functional equivalent, The court also held that Section441(b) did not serve narrowly the interest of the state in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, although compelling, because the independent expenditures it banned were, by definition, not coordinated or pre-arranged with a candidate or campaign and could not result in a quid pro quo in which votes are exchanged for money. While such spending could ingratiate a company with and lead to greater access to a candidate, "ingratiation and access not corruption."