(Feb. 13, 2016 21:45 EST) Because the US Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, (2010), has been receiving so much attention throughout this presidential election cycle, here is a consolidated list of links which help those wishing to understand the case more than just its title.
Hillary Clinton has advocated, for unknown reasons, that the Citizens United case became to be because it involved an attack campaign against her.
Why she would want to take credit for something which drastically caused our campaign finance system to become corrupted, is unknown.
The gist of the case involves a movie produced by an anti-Hillary-Clinton entity. The movie was to cause people to not want to elect Hillary Clinton.
There were provisions in a law which required various disclosures when campaign related speech was being paid for and used against a political candidate. That, is what Hillary Clinton was at the time.
The producers of the movie then filed an action in court seeking an injunction to keep the law requiring disclosure from being applied to them.
Accordingly the case, originally launched in 2008, eventually cycled its way through the courts system all the way to the Supreme Court. When in 2010, the court, in a 5-4 split decision, ruled in Citizens United’s favor.
Below are some interesting links for reference.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Mar. 27, 2002)
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.[1]
