Citizens United v. Gessler
2014 WL 6685443
10th Cir.2014Background
- Citizens United is a nonprofit film producer and distributor whose Rocky Mountain Heist targets Colorado and broader U.S. audiences; the film and its ads refer to Colorado candidates in the 2014 general election.
- Colorado’s campaign-disclosure regime (FCPA) imposes reporting for electioneering communications and independent expenditures, with exemptions for print, broadcast, and certain routine-business communications.
- Disclosures require reports if expenditures exceed $1,000 per calendar year, including donor details for earmarked contributions; exemptions are broad and include online media treated as print or press.
- Secretary of State declined to grant Citizens United a disclosure exemption, distinguishing Rocky Mountain Heist from exempt media and denying press exemptions for the film and advertising under state law.
- Citizens United filed suit in federal court seeking to block enforcement of Colorado disclosures as applied to Rocky Mountain Heist; district court denied relief, and Citizens United appealed.
- The court held that, as applied, Citizens United prevails and is entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the challenged disclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado’s media exemptions render disclosure unconstitutional as applied | Citizens United argues exemptions discriminate by speaker and burden First Amendment rights | Colorado maintains media exemptions serve informational interests and are narrowly tailored | Yes, as applied, exemptions violate First Amendment; relief granted |
| Whether Rocky Mountain Heist is an electioneering communication or independent expenditure | Rocky Mountain Heist should be exempt from disclosure like media | Film may be electioneering or expenditure; not exempt | Rocky Mountain Heist treated as non-exempt for purposes of disclosure; but relief focuses on applied exemptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (disclosures under exacting scrutiny; no corporate immunity for press exemptions)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (establishes exacting scrutiny for disclosure with anti-corruption concerns)
- Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (exacting scrutiny framework for disclosure requirements)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (context for disclosures and exemptions; quid pro quo concerns with coordinated expenditures)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (press exemptions and corporate political speech)
- United States v. Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995) (as-applied challenges and relief limitations in First Amendment)