write a summary of the case using IRAC

Issue (what is the legal question):

reasoning :

analysis:

conclusion:

Facts of the case Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act(BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president. In an attempt toregulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications. " Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the discosure of donors to such communication and a disdaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidateitintends to support. Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances. The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Courtin McConnellv. FEChad already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, itheld that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The courtreasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that discosure of donors "might beunconstitutional ifit imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause, but those circumstances did not existin Citizen United's claim. Conclusion byidelesy