What is Citizens United?

Citizens United refers to the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that was decided in January 2010, in which corporations, trade associations, unions, and non-profit groups were given the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent expenditures, also known as advertisements, advocating for the election or defeat of political candidates during federal elections. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority of justices argued that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals, and therefore it is unconstitutional to restrict their speech in any way at any time, including how much money they want to spend to influence federal elections.

Citizens United also refers to the name of the conservative non-profit that sued the Federal Election Commission in this historic and controversial Supreme Court case. In 2008, Citizens United took the FEC to court because it was barred from advertising its documentary Hillary: The Movie criticizing then-Senator Hillary Clinton because it was deemed “electioneering communications." It argued that the court should overrule the 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that limited corporate spending in candidate elections.

What’s the significance?

While corruption in political campaigns is nothing new, this case undid several laws that curbed this issue. For example, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, limited the role that corporations could play in federal elections by restricting them from spending money on “electioneering communications," or advertisements advocating for or against candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. This law was held in place thanks to a previous case in 1990 known as Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which ruled that corporate wealth could disproportionately influence the outcome of elections given how much money corporations are capable of spending on advertisements.

While independent groups still cannot give direct campaign contributions to candidates, many argue that the influence unleashed by Citizens United has made elections more corrupt than ever before. They point out that campaign expenditures on behalf of candidates, no matter where they go, can cause the candidates to be more favorable toward a particular corporation, labor union, or organization. Many also argue that because the ruling identifies spending money as free speech, corporations and other organizations will drown out other voices, putting the average citizen at a disadvantage.

The 2012 Republican primaries have showcased the influence of independent political action committees, known as "Super PACs." These groups can register with the FEC and can accept unlimited amounts of money from corporations, labor unions, individuals, and non-profits in order to influence elections. They must disclose their donors and spend their money independently from the candidate's own campaign. However, many critics point out the fact that non-profits do not have to disclose their donors, so those who wish to remain anonymous can still influence elections. This undisclosed spending is also referred to as "dark money" and, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, only half of non-party outside spending was reported to the public in 2010. Currently, the Super PACs that have raised the most money are Republican ones.

Who’s talking about it?

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Tom Ferguson talks about how money in politics makes congress inactive...Joe Costello notes that the Citizens United ruling was to be expected after a history of our government not reigning in corporate power...Paul Blumenthal explains how Citizens United gave birth to Super PACs...Two years after the ruling, Steven Rosenfeld reports on the growing movement to overturn Citizens United...Geoffrey Stone explains what led to the Citizens United ruling and the arguments on both sides...Editors at the New York Times share their views on how corporate money will reshape politics...Richard Hasen argues that Citizens United will lead to more corruption and less democracy...NPR tracks the history of campaign finance law...Peter Rothberg shares Annie Leonard's video telling the story of Citizens United and offers challenges to the law already underway...E.J. Dionne writes that Citizens United needs to be overturned because it has created a "democracy" for the rich.

[Note: updated on 8.6.2010]

What does clawback mean?

Clawback refers to previously given monies or benefits that are taken back due to specially arising circumstances.

What’s the significance?

The Obama administration and members of Congress are currently discussing tax clawbacks designed to recoup the AIG bonuses.

Who’s talking about it?

Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum is unimpressed by the argument that clawbacks in the AIG case would violate the sanctity of contracts, but wonders about the legality and fairness…Steve Randy Waldman of Interfluidity.com writes that the benefits of broad, well-crafted tax clawbacks could exceed their costs, but warns that an AIG one-off recovering less than half a billion dollars is relatively insignificant...Christopher Beam of Slate.com explore the legal concept of "unjust enrichment" as a possible grounding for AIG clawbacks...Lawmakers are clawing back Wall Street bonuses and money made by Madoff investors who got out in time...FinReg sets new rules about clawback policies and disclosure.

[Note: Updated on 2.16.2011]

What is the Communications Act of 1934?

Written and passed during FDR's first term, the Communications Act of 1934 consolidated existing radio, television, and telephone regulations and created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee all interstate and foreign communications. It was intended to streamline the regulatory process and expand affordable access to communication services.

The bill also established regulatory standards for various types of communications, including Title I services, which are subject to looser restrictions, and Title II services, which fall under more rigorous "common carrier" rules intended to protect equal access to these networks.

What's the significance?

As communications networks came to occupy a more prominent role in American society, the FCC's influence grew along with them. Throughout its history, it has often provoked controversy due to its efforts to police obscene content, which some see as a violation of free speech. In 1996, the Telecommunications Act amended the 1934 law in an attempt to bring it up to date with modern technology. However, critics noted that the new law also weakened ownership rules designed to prevent the growth of telecom monopolies.

Currently the FCC is at the center of the debate over net neutrality. In 2002, it ruled that most forms of broadband Internet access did not qualify as telecommunications services, and were therefore not subject to Title II's common carrier regulations. Supporters of net neutrality, who believe that the Internet must be kept free and equally accessible to everyone, argue that the FCC should establish new regulations to include broadband Internet services or that Congress should pass another law to expand the FCC's authority.

Who's talking about it?

Sarah Nathan explained how the regulations established in 1934 led to the current battle over net neutrality... Leslie Harris argued that the current limits on the FCC's jurisdiction are an anachronism... Adam Cohen reminded us that the 1934 law grants the president the power to shut down all communications (including the Internet!) in a time of war...The FCC drew criticism for its own net neutrality guidelines...Senator Maria Cantwell wants to add net neutrality principles to the Communications Act.

[Note: Updated on 2.16.2011]

What is a cramdown?

A cramdown is when a bankruptcy court forces a bank to modify a loan, such as a mortgage, to reduce the principal debt, change the interest rate, or take other steps to help the bankruptcy filer. Under current bankruptcy law, courts can't force these changes on mortgages taken out on a filer's primary residence, as they can for car or student loans.

What's the significance?

As a potential fix to the subprime mortgage meltdown, consumer advocates have pointed to cramdowns as a possible way to help underwater homeowners successfully modify their loans. It was introduced for inclusion in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, but the financial industry voiced strong opposition and it was ultimately dropped.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Who's talking about it?

Mike Konczal describes how loan modification programs could have succeeded if cramdown were allowed...David Dayen points out that cramdown would have helped HAMP incentivize banks to modify loans...Elizabeth Warren's Netroots Nation panel discussed how walking away from a mortgage may be the only option for underwater homeowners without cramdown...Jean Molloff describes the predatory loan modifications going on without cramdown...Annie Lowrey reports that cramdown may be resurfacing and could get a second chance...Democrats in Congress accused President Obama of killing cramdown...Sen. Jeff Merkley is still pushing for a form of cramdown.