<P> However, the court upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements . The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties . </P> <P> The decision was highly controversial and remains a subject of widespread discussion . </P> <P> In the case, No. 08 - 205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts, which was a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain--Feingold Act or "BCRA" (pronounced "bik - ruh"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions . The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that § 203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries . The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures for "electioneering communications". The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA § 201 and § 311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office . </P> <P> Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain--Feingold Act) modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b to prohibit corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate in any context) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election . During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501 (c) (4) organization, Citizens United, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9 / 11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election . The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made . The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft - Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 . In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that: </P>

The 2010 supreme court decision in citizens united v. fec allows
find me the text answering this question