<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/01/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-corporate-speech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:05:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Strikes Down Restrictions on Corporate Speech</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/01/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-corporate-speech/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-corporate-speech</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/01/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-corporate-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:09:37 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizens United v. FEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=6974?d=20150120104318EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banning corporate and union expenditures on political speech violate the First Amendment. The decision also calls into question similar restrictions on corporate speech in two dozen [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Theodore B. Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/tolson" target="_blank">Ted Olson</a> is a partner at Gibson, Dunn &amp; Crutcher LLP and former Solicitor General of the United States; this post is based on a Gibson Dunn Update by Mr. Olson, <a href="http://www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/mmcgill" target="_blank">Matthew D. McGill</a> and <a href="http://www.gibsondunn.com/Lawyers/atayrani" target="_blank">Amir C. Tayrani</a>. Messrs. Olson, McGill and Tayrani, and Ryan J. Watson briefed <em>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</em> on behalf of Citizens United; Mr. Olson argued the case in the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2009 and re-argued the case in September 2009.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision in <em>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</em>, which held that portions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banning corporate and union expenditures on political speech violate the First Amendment. The decision also calls into question similar restrictions on corporate speech in two dozen States.</p>
<p>The case arose out of Citizens United&#8217;s January 2008 release of <em>Hillary: The Movie</em>, a 90-minute critical documentary about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate for the Democratic Party&#8217;s presidential nomination. Citizens United sought to distribute the movie through Video On Demand, but was prohibited from doing so because federal law made it a felony for corporations&#8211;including nonprofit corporations&#8211;to use their general treasury funds for political advocacy. Citizens United filed suit challenging those restrictions. After Citizens United lost before a three-judge district court, the Supreme Court granted review and set the case for argument in March 2009. At its final sitting before its summer recess, the Court then took the highly unusual step of ordering re-argument of the case at a special September 2009 sitting.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/01/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-corporate-speech/#more-6974" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Supreme Court Strikes Down Restrictions on Corporate Speech">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/01/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-corporate-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
