On Wednesday, new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor hit the bench for the first time to hear arguments for CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, a case that could change 100 years of campaign finance laws. The case centers around Hillary: The Movie, which was funded by Virginia-based conservative non-profit organization Citizens United, and whether or not federal campaign finance laws apply to the film.

Last year, the FEC banned the broadcast of the Hillary-critical doc because it was funded by a corporation, claiming that it was a violation of election law. The main thrust of CU's argument against the FEC is that this ban violated their first amendment right to free speech. So a big question in the case is whether or not a corporation is actually entitled to first amendment rights to begin with. 

One of Citizens United's points is that if the ban is upheld, ostensibly anything distributed by a corporation - a book, a movie, or a newsletter - that says something political could be as well. 

Another question the case brings up is the type of corporations covered by the law. Right now, it applies to both large, for-profit and non-profit corporations, as well as unions. Should there be a broad ruling regarding the regulation of corporate spending on election-related activities, or should there be special cases for different types of corporate entities? 

For more on the case:
-Documentary.org's original post when the suit first came to light
-Listen to Big Money, Political Influence and the Right to Free Speech on KCRW's "Which Way, L.A.?" with Warren Olney.
-For the legalese, read about the case on SCOTUS Wiki (Supreme Court of the United States Wiki)