Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
{'<entity_0>': 'Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission', '<entity_1>': 'Supreme Court of the United States', '<entity_2>': 'Citizens United v. FEC', '<entity_3>': '09 September 2009', '<entity_4>': '21 January 2010', '<entity_5>': '24 March 2009', '<entity_6>': 'oral argument', '<entity_7>': 'decision', '<entity_8>': '08-205', '<entity_9>': 'United States Reports'}
[['Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission', 'significant event', 'decision'], ['decision', 'point in time', '21 January 2010'], ['Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission', 'significant event', 'oral argument'], ['oral argument', 'point in time', '24 March 2009'], ['oral argument', 'point in time', '09 September 2009'], ['Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission', 'U. S. Supreme Court docket number', '08-205'], ['Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission', 'published in', 'United States Reports'], ['Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission', 'court', 'Supreme Court of the United States'], ['Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission', 'publication date', '21 January 2010'], ['Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission', 'alternative', 'Citizens United v. FEC']]
<entity_0>, 558 <entity_9> 310 (2010), was a landmark <entity_7> of the <entity_1> concerning campaign finance. <entity_8>, 558 <entity_9> 310 (2010), the non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA" (pronounced "bik-ruh"). The Supreme Court heard <entity_6> on <entity_5> and then asked for further briefs on June 29; the re-argument was heard on <entity_3>. On <entity_4>, the Court issued a 5–4 <entity_7> in favor of Citizens United that struck down the BCRA's restrictions on independent expenditures from corporate treasures as violations of the First Amendment. Citizens United, the group filing the lawsuit, said, "Today's <entity_9> Supreme Court <entity_7> allowing Citizens United to air its documentary films and advertisements is a tremendous victory, not only for Citizens United but for every American who desires to participate in the political process." In response to statements by President Obama and others that the ruling would allow foreign entities to gain political influence through <entity_9> subsidiaries, Smith pointed out that the <entity_7> did not overturn the ban on political donations by foreign corporations and the prohibition on any involvement by foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending by <entity_9> subsidiaries, which are covered by other parts of the law. In light of the Supreme Court's <entity_7> in <entity_2>, in which the Supreme Court held that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting independent expenditures, the appeals court ruled that "contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption." In June 2012, over the dissent of the same four judges who dissented in Citizens United, the Court simultaneously granted certiorari and summarily reversed the <entity_7> in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 567, <entity_9> __ (2012). It took another <entity_7>, by the <entity_9> Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, to actually authorize the creation of super PACs.
['legal case', 'United States Supreme Court decision']