How Law Changes Could Affect Citizens United V. Fec

The 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case sparked intense controversy, with the US Supreme Court ruling that laws prohibiting corporations and unions from using general funds for electioneering communications violated the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. This decision, which overruled previous judgments, significantly altered election law and prompted discussions about the role of money in politics, transparency, and potential legislative responses. The case's impact on campaign finance laws and the rise of super PACs have been widely debated, with some calling for legislative and constitutional amendments to address concerns about the influence of money in politics.

The Supreme Court's ruling

On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which had wide-ranging implications for campaign finance laws. The case centred around a conservative nonprofit organization, Citizens United, which filed a complaint with the FEC regarding Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11, and its associated advertisements. Citizens United argued that these advertisements constituted political advertising and thus fell within the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).

The Court's decision was based on its interpretation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. It found that laws prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent "electioneering communications" violated the Constitution. In doing so, the Court invalidated Section 203 of the BCRA and Section 441(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA). The Court also rejected the idea that anti-corruption interests were a valid reason to restrict independent corporate political speech, as there was less danger of expenditures being given as a quid pro quo to influence candidates.

The Citizens United ruling had a significant impact on campaign finance laws across the country. It led to a major jump in spending by outside groups, including nonprofits that were not required to disclose their donors. This lack of transparency in political spending allowed big political spenders to remain anonymous, contributing to a surge in secret spending. The decision also prompted state legislatures to raise their limits on contributions to candidates and parties, and many states called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's decision.

Free speech

The Citizens United v. FEC case has had a significant impact on free speech in the context of political campaigns and spending. The case centred around a conservative nonprofit organization, Citizens United, which filed a complaint about Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11", arguing that its advertisements constituted political advertising restricted by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC had far-reaching consequences for free speech. The Court held that restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations, such as those in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, violated the First Amendment. This interpretation of the First Amendment effectively equated limitations on spending with limitations on speech, setting a precedent that has had a profound impact on political campaigns.

The Citizens United ruling resulted in a significant increase in spending by corporations and labour unions, with the emergence of "super PACs" that could accept unlimited contributions. This surge in spending has raised concerns about the influence of money in politics and the potential for corruption. The ruling also contributed to a lack of transparency in election spending, with dark money expenditures increasing significantly, making it difficult to track the original sources of donations.

Despite the concerns, supporters of the Citizens United ruling argue that it protects free speech, ensuring that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals. They contend that the government should not restrict political speech, regardless of the speaker's identity or the amount of money they have. This perspective highlights the importance of free speech in a democratic society, where holding officials accountable is paramount.

However, critics argue that the ruling has led to inequalities in speech, with corporations having disproportionate influence over political discourse due to their vast financial resources. The distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant, as corporations cannot vote or run for office, yet they can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising. The Citizens United v. FEC case and its aftermath continue to spark debates about the role of money in politics and the delicate balance between free speech and fair elections.

Disclosure requirements

In the case of Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned an earlier decision that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. The Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications.

Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, brought a complaint to the Federal Election Commission regarding Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary that discussed the events of September 11, 2001, from an unfavorable perspective of George W. Bush. They argued that the advertisements for the film were political advertising, which would bring them under the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Citizens United wanted to pay cable companies to make the film available for free through video-on-demand, but they feared that the film and the ads would be covered by the Act's ban on corporate-funded electioneering communications. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the FEC, arguing that the ban on corporate electioneering communications was unconstitutional as applied to the film and that the disclosure and disclaimer requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the film and its ads.

The District Court denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the FEC's motion for summary judgment. The court held that §441b was facially constitutional and that it was constitutional as applied to the film, "Hillary", because it was “susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her." The court also rejected Citizens United’s challenge to the disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that as-applied challenges would be available if a group could show a “ ‘reasonable probability’ ” that disclosure of its contributors’ names “ ‘will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties. ’ ” The FEC had found the disclosure requirements constitutional as to all electioneering communications, and the district court held that Citizens United had not established the probability that it would prevail on the merits of its arguments against the electioneering communication disclosure and disclaimer provisions.

Citizens United contributed to a major jump in dark money spending, which often comes from nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors. This has led to a surge in secret spending from outside groups in federal elections, with dark money expenditures increasing from less than $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in the 2024 presidential elections alone. While super PACs are required to disclose their donors, those donors can include dark money groups, which obscure the original source of the donations.

To address the lack of transparency in political spending, strong disclosure laws have been enacted, such as the one in Washington, which requires groups spending significant sums on election activity to report their largest donors.

Campaign finance laws

The Citizens United v. FEC case in 2010 had a significant impact on campaign finance laws. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case overturned previous decisions that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. The Court found that laws restricting political speech, including those banning corporate expenditures, must be subject to "strict scrutiny," meaning the government must prove that the restriction serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored. This ruling effectively ended some limits on campaign spending, allowing outside groups, known as "super PACs," to accept unlimited contributions as long as they don't give directly to candidates.

The Citizens United decision has been criticized for increasing the influence of big money in politics and reducing transparency in campaign spending. It contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups, with "dark money" expenditures skyrocketing in subsequent years. To address these concerns, reformers have proposed various solutions, including encouraging "small donor public financing" to dilute the power of large donors, fully disclosing all political spending, and strengthening rules to prevent super PACs from coordinating directly with candidates.

While the Citizens United ruling has had a significant impact on campaign finance, it is important to note that it did not affect the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. The Federal Election Campaign Act still prohibits corporations and labor unions from using their funds for electioneering communications or advocating for the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

Constitutional amendment

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding campaign finance laws. The case centred around a conservative nonprofit organization, Citizens United, which in 2004, brought a complaint to the FEC regarding Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. Citizens United argued that the film's advertisements constituted political advertising, which would bring them within the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC sparked significant controversy. The Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling barred restrictions on corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations from independent expenditures, allowing unlimited election spending by these entities.

To overturn Citizens United, a Constitutional amendment would be required to address the issues created by the ruling. Such an amendment could include provisions to:

• Establish clear definitions and guidelines for what constitutes "political advertising" and "electioneering communications", closing any loopholes that have been exploited by special interests.
• Implement strict spending limits on corporations, unions, and other outside groups during election periods. This could include caps on independent expenditures and a ban on using general treasury funds for political advertising.
• Strengthen transparency and disclosure requirements for all groups spending money on political campaigns. This could include mandatory disclosure of all donors, including dark money groups, to prevent foreign interference and increase accountability.
• Create an independent regulatory body to enforce these new rules and ensure compliance, addressing the longstanding challenges of dysfunction at the FEC.
• Provide alternative means for candidates to fund their campaigns without relying heavily on big donors and super PACs. This could include public campaign financing, such as small donor matching, to amplify small private contributions with public funds.
• Protect the rights of individual citizens to engage in political speech and ensure their voices are not drowned out by the spending power of corporations and special interests.

A Constitutional amendment is a complex and lengthy process, requiring the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress or a national convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. It then must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. The amendment process is designed to be difficult to ensure that any changes to the Constitution reflect the will of the people and protect their rights.

Frequently asked questions