Introduction Following 2008, a non-profit organization (Citizens United) composed and produced a documentary film entitled "Hillary: The Movie.” The documentary criticized the ability and competence of Hilary Clinton (the senator at the time) to run as a presidential candidate. The organization aimed to distribute the documentary through various media, including cinemas and digital versatile discs (DVD). Later, the company realized that in order to reach a wide audience, it had to take the documentary using the video-on-demand portal. The first steps in raising public awareness regarding the documentary involved the adoption of promotional services. To promote the film effectively and efficiently, the company resorted to advertisements using broadcasting and cable television services. Of course, to effectively achieve the desired public awareness of the film, the organization needed a substantial financial input into advertisements and distribution of the film through the video-on-demand portal. It was through this endeavor that Citizens United exceeded the requirements of federal law. Controversy arose when the company decided to use general Treasury finances to fund the project. The company could not do any advertising without these funds. On the other hand, federal law prescribes the actions of any organization aimed at spending the general finances of the Treasury for political and opinionated expenditures. Federal law exercises this mandate through revised Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Additionally, the scope of the ban includes the expenditure of corporate treasury funds for speech intended to either promote or downgrade...... middle of paper ......tution based on a special case. The court found the need to review restrictions on independent business spending when making a political statement. Finally, he said that removing independent business spending therefore removed the political statement. In the court's analysis, the court identified the following: Before Austin, the First Constitutional Amendment described the foresight of corporation law. In addition, the amendment contextualizes the excesses and limits of free political communication. According to Austin, the court found compelling anti-distortion evidence that necessitated banning corporate spending on independent elections. The court justified its actions because businesses accumulate wealth which, when channeled into independent expenditures, can have corrosive effects.