Opinion
A technician works in the "Acquisition Room", which receives televison feeds from around the world, during an event to mark the opening of the new Univision and Fusion television networks newsroom in Doral, Florida August 28, 2013. REUTERS/Joe Skipper A technician works in the "Acquisition Room", which receives televison feeds from around the world, during an event to mark the opening of the new Univision and Fusion television networks newsroom in Doral, Florida August 28, 2013. REUTERS/Joe Skipper  

Citizens United Redux: The Masses Deserve A Media Exemption Too

Photo of Eric Wang
Eric Wang
Senior Fellow, Center for Competitive Politics
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      Eric Wang

      Eric is a pro bono Senior Fellow with CCP and the principal of Eric Wang PLLC (www.campaignlaw.us), a law practice focusing on federal and state campaign finance, lobbying, political non-profit, and gift and travel laws. Eric has served as interim general counsel and legal counsel at Americans for Prosperity, one of the largest ideological non-profit organizations. Prior to AFP, Eric was counsel to Commissioner Caroline C. Hunter at the Federal Election Commission and an associate at Blank Rome LLP. His writings are featured frequently in Roll Call, The Hill, Politico, and theWashington Times. Eric is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Virginia School of Law.

Four years after Citizens United won its landmark Supreme Court case, the scrappy non-profit is still fighting for the right to be treated equally as the big dogs. Contrary to the popular misconception that the decision opened the floodgates for massive corporate political spending, the ruling actually reversed a trend over the past forty years of campaign finance laws regulating average citizens more stringently than large media corporations. However, to this day, citizens who band together and spend no more than a paltry amount on political speech still face far greater hurdles than do multibillion-dollar companies like Time Warner, News Corporation, and ABC.

Earlier this month, Citizens United filed a federal lawsuit challenging this discrimination. As in most other jurisdictions in the country, Colorado law provides a “media exemption,” whereby the traditional press is free to report and comment on politicians and elections without having to include disclaimers in their speech and file burdensome reports with regulators about their spending and sources of funding.

Citizens United contends the law does not allow an exemption for “other speakers — including other media entities — that are engaged in similar political speech.” Citizens United proposes a very simple principle: Those who are engaged in the same functional activities as the media establishment deserve the same freedom from regulation, regardless of their organizational form.

Specifically, Citizens United would like to produce a documentary about Colorado politics. However, if it spends more than $1,000 on the film, it becomes subject to regulation if the film happens to mention a candidate within a month before a primary or two months before a general election, or if it appears to advocate for a candidate. Meanwhile, the major networks presumably spend millions of dollars each week doing the same thing with shows like Meet the Press, the O’Reilly Factor, or the Rachel Maddow Show. I say “presumably” because, unlike groups which lack the official status of “the media,” the recognized news networks are not required to report how much they pay their talking heads and producers, or how much they charge their advertisers.

Before challenging the Colorado law, Citizens United first approached state regulators to see whether it too could avail itself of the media exemption. But officials rebuffed its request, pointing to the state’s antiquated laws, which only exempt newspapers, magazines, “other periodical[s],” and “broadcast facilit[ies]” from the disclaimer and reporting requirements, thus excluding more recent forms of media, such as internet streaming and even DVDs, which have only been around for twenty years. Moreover, while Citizens United intends to license its films to certain broadcast outlets, it also could not qualify as a broadcaster because it did not own the broadcast facilities.

The Colorado officials cannot be faulted, however, for their unfortunate application of the state’s inherently discriminatory laws. Working with the media exemption is like wrestling with a pig; even when the doctrine is used to reach the right results, it is impossible to walk away with clean hands.

For example, when the Federal Election Commission granted the media exemption to Citizens United in 2010 under the federal law, the agency was forced to distinguish its contrary decision six years earlier. While Citizens United had only produced two documentaries in 2004, the FEC explained, “the volume and frequency of [its] film production have [since] increased substantially.” The agency then proceeded to deny, disingenuously, that it was effectively “impos[ing] a requirement that an entity seeking to avail itself of the press exemption first demonstrate that it has a track record of engaging in media activities” because, otherwise, the FEC would have needed to acknowledge that the law discriminates against newcomers.