There is going to be a special meeting by the Supreme court tomorrow which could potentially herald in the most monumentous change in campaign finance in over a century.

The Supreme Court in it's last session discussed the arguements over whether or not Hillary Clinton should become an electioneering communication and should be subject to campaign finance rules.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009

Full case name Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket nos. 08-205
Prior history defendant granted summary judgement 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.C. 2008),[1] certiorari granted U.S.
Questions presented
Whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-demand to cable subscribers.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts

Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is an ongoing legal case in which the United States Supreme Court will decide whether a politically charged film can be defined as a "campaign ad" under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. This case is an appeal from a lower court case of the same name from 2008, in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary: The Movie could not be shown on television right before the 2008 Democratic primaries under the McCain-Feingold Act. Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called it “one of the most important First Amendment cases in years.”[2]


Background
Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, wanted to run television commercials promoting its film Hillary: The Movie, a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton.[3] In January 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the commercials violated the provision in the McCain-Feingold Act restricting "electioneering communications" 30 days before primaries and clearly had no other purpose than discredit Clinton; Citizens United argued that the film was fact-based and nonpartisan.[4]

The Supreme Court docketed this case on August 18, 2008,[5] and heard oral arguments on March 24, 2009.[3][6][7] A decision was expected sometime in the early summer months of 2009.[8]

However, on June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to reargue the case on September 9 after issuing briefs on larger issues.[9] At oral argument, Citizens United is to address the following question: "For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. FEC which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?”[10]

Citizens United v. FEC

On December 13, 2007, Citizens United, a nonprofit membership corporation, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the statutory provisions governing disclaimers on, and disclosure and funding of, certain "electioneering communications" (ECs). On January 15, 2008, the District Court denied Citizens United’s motion for a preliminary injunction, in which Citizens United requested that the court prevent the FEC from enforcing its electioneering communications provisions.


Background
An EC is a broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate and is publicly distributed within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(A)(i) and 11 CFR 100.29(a). Corporations and labor organizations are generally prohibited from using their general treasury funds to finance ECs. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2) and 11 CFR 114.2(b)(2)(iii).

The Commission recently modified its regulations governing the funding of ECs by corporations and labor organizations in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL II). In that case the Supreme Court held that because the ads in question were not the "functional equivalent of express advocacy," the prohibition on corporate or labor organization funding of ECs was unconstitutional as applied to WRTL’s ads. The Court further held that a communication is the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" only if it "is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

The FEC revised its rules to provide a general exemption from the prohibition on corporate and labor organization funding of ECs unless the communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified federal candidate. The revised regulations do not exempt any ECs from the reporting and disclaimer requirements.

In an 1816 letter, Thomas Jefferson declared his hope to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”