When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibited corporations from running television commercials for or against Presidential candidates for thirty days before primaries. During that period, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had wanted to run a documentary, as a cable video on demand, called “Hillary: The Movie,” which was critical of Hillary Clinton. The F.E.C. had prohibited the broadcast under McCain-Feingold, and Citizens United had challenged the decision. There did not seem to be a lot riding on the outcome. After all, how many nonprofits wanted to run documentaries about Presidential candidates, using relatively obscure technologies, just before elections? 

Read more at The New Yorker here. 

CU President David Bossie weighed in on the news that President Obama came out for gay marriage:
Many conservative advocacy groups displayed no such reticence to wade  into the debate. These groups, which will play major roles in trying to  motivate voters to the polls, see an opportunity to drive a wedge  between Mr. Obama and religious voters, a group he made significant  inroads with in 2008.
“Just when you thought the conservative movement couldn’t be any more  energized against President Obama, he gives us another gift,” said David  Bossie, president of the conservative advocacy group Citizens United.  “Add it to the list of atrocities.”
Read the full article

Citizens United, the conservative advocacy group that won the 2010 ruling freeing corporations and labor unions to spend freely to influence elections for President and Congress, has urged the Supreme Court to protect that decision by overturning — without briefing or hearing — a Montana Supreme Court decision that went the opposite way.  Accusing the state court of “constitutional mischief,” Citizens United’s lawyers said the Court should “reaffirm its position as the final arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning” by acting summarily. 

 Read more here at SCOTUS Blog.  

PI SCOOPLET … CITIZENS UNITED ASKS SUPREME COURT TO PRESERVE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION: Citizens United, the conservative political organization that prompted the Supreme Court’s campaign finance landscape-altering Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, is asking the high court to further defend its decision. 

Read more at Politico here.  

New York City police and financial institutions are bracing themselves for a citywide protest Tuesday that many see as a test of whether Occupy Wall Street's strength and popular appeal will reignite after a dormant winter. 

Occupy organizers say they plan to "shut the city down" with pickets throughout Midtown and a union-backed march that is expected to draw thousands. But the group's ambition comes with a risk: a fizzled event could signal the end of its ability to draw mainstream support. 

The loosely organized group has called for a popular strike, a goal that isn't supported by its allies in labor, which must comply with a host of laws and internal rules governing walkouts. New York unions have marched for the past several years on May Day. 

 Read more here at the Wall Street Journal.  

Last night Occupy Unmasked Executive Producer and CU President David Bossie and Director Stephen K. Bannon were guests on Hannity with Sean Hannity to show exclusive clips from the upcoming film.
Watch the video segment below:


Occupy Unmasked, set to be released in June, is now available for pre-order here.

PI ON THE SCENE … SCHUMER, DEMS VILIFY CITIZENS UNITED DECISION: Calling the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision “the worst decision since Plessy v. Ferguson” — as in, the 1896 case in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of state laws promoting racial segregation — Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) led a gaggle of Democratic senators today on Capitol Hill in vowing to fight the newly expended rights of corporations and special interests to fund federal politics. If Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were alive and witnessing today’s politics, Schumer predicted at the pep rally-style affair that “they’d say, ‘Go forward, right on, because our democracy is being ruined by these decisions.’ ”

David Bossie, president of Citizens United, sat quietly among about 150 people — many local government officials and campaign finance reform advocates as Schumer and others spoke. “How overly dramatic can you get?” Bossie rhetorically asked PI shortly afterward. “They know all the talking points … But they don’t understand our case was a fight for the little guys to have their voices heard. They want to give government the power of who gets speech and who doesn’t.” 

Read more at Politico here. 

This past week, DC media and political luminaries came together at the Newseum in Washington, DC to celebrate the life of Andrew Breitbart. 

Speakers included Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Steve King (R-IA) and Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI); as well as Citizens United's David Bossie, National Review's Jonah Goldberg, conservative activist Sonnie Johnson, and Breitbart.com CEO Larry Solov. Also in attendance were Representatives Mike Pence (R-IN) and Jeff Fortenberry (NE). 

The program lasted a little over an hour, and was filled with deeply moving and personal accounts of Andrew, to whom Congressman Louie Gohmert so aptly and eloquently attributed the following trait: "Testicular Titanium." 

Read more at Breitbart.com here. 

Jonathan S. Tobin writes about how the Citizens United decision has leveled the playing field for challengers against incumbents:
The Times story attempts to paint such super PACs as tools of corporate interests, which fits in with the liberal critique of Citizens United as undermining democracy. But the real moral of this story is very  different. By making it easier for groups to spend money promoting their  ideas and/or opposing candidates, the court has destroyed the dynamic  of most congressional races in which it was virtually impossible for  challengers to raise enough money to take on entrenched incumbents. The  victim of Citizens United isn’t democracy; it’s the laws and  traditions of congressional politics that amounted to a near-foolproof  incumbent protection plan. ...
Incumbents always think there is something not quite kosher about  anything that makes it easy for those out of power to hold them  accountable. The mainstream media, which prizes its constitutionally  protected right to exercise influence on elections, similarly looks  askance at efforts to break up their monopoly on campaign information  via campaign advertising. Citizens United has not injected more  money into our political system since money has always been — and  always will be — an integral part of campaigns. Though incumbents will  always have great advantages, what the High Court has done is to tilt  the playing field a little bit more towards the challengers. Though  President Obama and the liberal chorus in which the Times plays a key role decries this change, what they are complaining about is more democracy, not less.
Read the full story here.

Syndicated columnist George Will discusses the effects of the Citizens United decision:
The people currently hysterical about super PAC money in politics blame the 2010 Citizens United decision, wherein the Supreme Court held that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts on  political advocacy as long as they do not coordinate with candidates.  The court's logic was that individuals do not forfeit their First  Amendment speech rights when they come together in corporate entities or  unions to speak collectively. What is the constitutional basis for  saying otherwise?
This decision's practical effect is primarily in empowering unions and incorporated nonprofit advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club and the National Rifle Association. But The New York Times,  which cannot have read it, says (Jan. 10) Adelson's spending  "underscores" how Citizens United "has made it possible for a wealthy  individual to influence an election." Many columnists and commentators  embrace this solecism.
Actually, Citizens United has nothing to do with Adelson and others  who are spending their own money, not any corporation's. People have  done this throughout the nation's life, and doing so was affirmed as a  constitutional right in the court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision.  Critics of super PACs - critics who were remarkably reticent in 2004  when George Soros was lavishing his own money on liberal advocacy - often refer to them  as "outside groups," much as Southern sheriffs used to denounce civil  rights workers as "outside agitators." Pray tell: Super PACs are outside  of what? Is the political process a private club with the parties and  candidates controlling membership? It might be more wholesome for the  speech-financing money that is flowing to super PACs to go instead to  the parties or candidates. But the very liberals who are horrified by  super PACs (other than Barack Obama's) have celebrated the laws that place restrictions on such giving.
Read more