The non-profit advocacy group known as Citizens United went on to sue the FEC over the prevention of the political ppv video that they had produced during the 2008 election year. It was then that the case ended up being handed over to the Supreme Court which ruled in 2010 over the case. It was in the Citizens United case against the FEC that was centered solely on the electing communication forum stating that the movies made to be aired on cable, satellite or even broadcasted to your television or radio be overturned on the argument that ads did not break any rules during the representation for the campaign trails of the election. It was later then discovered that had the case been handled as solicitor General Ted Olsen had suggested, Citizens United would no longer be a problem. It was the fact that the ruling shared a remote connection to the campaign finance laws. View the group’s profile on Politifact.com.
It was then during the line of questioning that the lawyer for the government had found himself boxed in. It is the hope that the End Citizens United reform would uphold the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter at hand. With the Supreme Court handing down the ruling of strict guidelines and rules for the election expenditures to be upheld because of the strict laws surrounding election financing.
With End Citizens United trying to overturn the rulings held onto from the courts, the Supreme Court ruled that there is reasons behind the rules concerning the amounts of money that can be contributed to groups such as SpeechNow. The law states that no one person, one corporation or business is allowed to go in excess of the money allowed to be raised by one entity.
End Citizens United is not about striking down the laws around campaign funds but rather to support what is being called as “judicial activism” by many of the critics. What most people are referring to as End Citizens United is that when you have money, it allows for free speech which is what they say is happening with corporations that accept donations above the amount allowed by law. It was not because of the money collected that money equaled speech but rather just helped it along with the matter of corruption within influence of elections.