Citizens United has appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction concerning its advertisements for the documentary film Hillary: The Movie (hillarythemovie.com) to the United States Supreme Court . 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 its advertisements are genuine issue ads protected by the First Amendment.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the requested preliminary injunction to allow Citizens United to run its ads without the McCain-Feingold reporting and disclaimer burdens on January 15. Citizens United filed its notice of appeal on January 16. This morning, the Court received Citizens United's Jurisdictional Statement (asking the Court to set the appeal for full briefing and oral argument) and a motion to expedite the appeal.
The appeal asks the Supreme Court to address three issues: (1) whether as-applied challenges are precluded by the Court's upholding of the disclosure requirements on their face in McConnell v. FEC (2003); (2) whether Congress may regulate as "electioneering communications" ads that the Court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) said were not "electioneering"; and (3) whether the District Court erred in denying the preliminary injunction.
James Bopp, Jr., counsel for Citizens United states: "This case raises substantial issues. First, since the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the notion that its McConnell decision precluded as-applied challenges to McCain-Feingold, I believe the district court was wrong to assert that McConnell precludes this as-applied challenge to McCain-Feingold. Second, since the Supreme Court said that "electioneering communications" without an "appeal to vote" were not "electioneering," the government has no justification for regulating such non-campaign speech. So Citizens United should have gotten a preliminary injunction. I hope the Supreme Court will agree to full briefing on these substantial issues and decide the case by June."
A copy of the Jurisdictional Statement, along with other case documents, can be found on the website for the James Madison Center for Free Speech at www.jamesmadisoncenter.org .
James Bopp, Jr. has a national constitutional law practice.
Transforming Debate for Inclusive and Impactful Participation Objective: To empower thousands—or even millions—to contribute meaningfully to debates by leveraging structured organization and robust evaluation criteria. Together, we can ensure every voice is heard and every idea is thoughtfully considered.
Jan 22, 2008
Citizens United Appeals Preliminary Injunction Denial to U.S. Supreme Court
Welcome to the Future of Collaborative Decision-Making
This platform isn’t just a space to share ideas—it’s a step toward a better Colorado. Here, we discuss, refine, and prioritize what truly matters for our state’s future. Your voice matters, and together, we can build a comprehensive and actionable plan that reflects our collective wisdom.
But this isn’t just about Colorado. It’s part of a larger movement to revolutionize how debates and decisions happen.
Transforming Debate for Inclusive and Impactful Participation
Imagine a world where thousands—even millions—contribute meaningfully to critical decisions. By leveraging structured organization, evidence-backed evaluation, and transparent processes, we can transform debates into tools for progress.
Join the conversation. Leave your thoughts, share your arguments, and let’s shape a smarter, brighter future together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment