Editing Citizens United (organization) (section)

== ''Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission'' ==
{{Main|Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission}}
Citizens United was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that began as a challenge to various statutory provisions of the [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002]] (BCRA), known as the "McCain-Feingold" law. The case revolved around the documentary ''Hillary: The Movie'', which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401603_pf.html|title='Hillary: The Movie' to Get Supreme Court Screening|last=Barnes|first=Robert|newspaper=The Washington Post|page=A5|date=March 14, 2009}}</ref> The case ([{{SCOTUS URL Docket|08-205}} 08-205], 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the [[United States Supreme Court]] on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by [[corporations]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-myth-of-campaign-finance-reform |title=The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform
|publisher= National Affairs |date=2010}}</ref> After that hearing, the Court requested re-argument specifically to address whether deciding the case required the Court to reconsider those earlier decisions in ''[[Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce]]'' and ''[[McConnell v. FEC]]''. The case was re-argued on September 9. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the provision of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate [[Political campaign|campaigns]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html |title=Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit| first= Adam| last= Liptak|agency=Associated Press |work= The New York Times |date=January 21, 2010| access-date= October 15, 2015}}</ref> A dissenting opinion by  [[Justice Stevens]]<ref name="Ref_d">[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html Stevens opinion] at ibid.</ref> was joined by [[Justice Ginsburg]], [[Justice Breyer]], and [[Justice Sotomayor]].