The Law That Changed America: Citizens United Decision

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, or Citizens United, is a landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision that changed the face of campaign finance and money in politics in the United States. Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit group, challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Citizens United, overturning century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabling corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.

Citizens United v. FEC

Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules, arguing that the FEC's prohibition of their film violated their First Amendment right to free speech. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favour of Citizens United, stating that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations and unions. This decision effectively enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections, as long as they were not formally "coordinating" with a candidate or political party.

The ruling was highly controversial, with strong support and opposition from various politicians, commentators, and advocacy groups. Supporters of the decision argued that it restored First Amendment rights and allowed for greater participation in the political process. On the other hand, critics contended that it gave too much power to special interests and lobbyists, undermining the influence of average Americans in elections.

The Citizens United v. FEC decision had a significant impact on the political landscape in the United States, leading to the creation of super PACs and an increase in dark money spending by outside groups. It also contributed to a growing sense of wealth inequality in politics and reinforced the racial wealth gap.

Landmark Supreme Court decision

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark Supreme Court decision that changed the landscape of campaign finance and money in politics in the United States. The case began as a challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the "McCain-Feingold" law, which prohibited corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections.

In 2008, Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organisation, produced a documentary film called "Hillary: The Movie", which was critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate in the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primary elections. Citizens United wanted to make the film available for free through video-on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 primary elections. However, they feared prosecution from the FEC, as the film could be considered a violation of the McCain-Feingold law's ban on corporate-funded electioneering communications.

Citizens United sought a declaratory judgment in federal court to assure their right to show the film, and the case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in favour of Citizens United, ruling that the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United had far-reaching implications for campaign finance in the United States. It overturned long-standing campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations, unions, and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. This led to the creation of super PACs (Political Action Committees), which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions, and spend unlimited amounts of money promoting political candidates.

The Citizens United decision remains highly controversial. Those in support of the decision argue that it restored First Amendment rights and levelled the playing field for different types of speakers in the political arena. On the other hand, critics argue that the decision has given too much power to special interests and lobbyists, and has increased the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption in elections.

Campaign finance laws

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. The ruling deemed that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including for-profits, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other kinds of associations.

Rationale for the Ruling

In the court's opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting "independent political spending" from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent. However, these assumptions have proven to be incorrect. The ruling also stated that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction.

Impact of the Ruling

The Citizens United ruling has had a significant impact on campaign finance laws and political spending in the United States. It has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, expanding the influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups. One of the most significant outcomes has been the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions, as long as they don't give directly to candidates. This has led to a significant increase in political spending, with super PACs spending approximately $2.9 billion on federal elections from 2010 to 2018. Additionally, the ruling has contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups, with dark money expenditures increasing significantly in recent election cycles.

Addressing the Consequences

In the short term, a reversal of the Citizens United ruling or a constitutional amendment to undo it is highly unlikely. However, there are policy solutions that can help mitigate the impact of the decision. These include publicly funded elections, strengthening disclosure and transparency requirements, and addressing dysfunction at the FEC to improve enforcement of campaign finance laws.

Free speech

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from making expenditures in connection with federal elections. The ruling, decided by a 5-4 majority, held that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations. This included for-profits, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other kinds of associations.

The Citizens United v. FEC ruling was highly controversial and remains a subject of widespread public discussion and strong opinions. Supporters of the decision argue that it restored First Amendment rights and empowered small and midsize corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations to make their voices heard in the political process. On the other hand, opponents argue that the ruling gives special interests and lobbyists more power in Washington and undermines the influence of average Americans in politics.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which includes the right to express one's opinions and ideas without government restriction. The Citizens United ruling upheld this right by allowing corporations and other groups to spend unlimited money on elections, as long as they do not directly contribute to a candidate's campaign fund or coordinate with the campaign. This ruling was based on the principle that political speech is protected by the First Amendment and that the government should not suppress or ration speech.

However, the Citizens United ruling has also been criticized for its potential to increase the influence of corporations and special interest groups in elections. Some argue that it has led to a tidal wave of money in politics, with a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations having a disproportionate impact on election outcomes. There are also concerns about the lack of transparency in political spending, as dark money groups can hide the identities of their donors.

In conclusion, the Citizens United v. FEC ruling had a significant impact on free speech in the context of political campaigns and elections. It upheld the First Amendment right to free speech by allowing unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions. However, it also raised concerns about the influence of money in politics and the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption. The debate around Citizens United continues, with ongoing efforts to address its consequences and ensure a fair and transparent political process.

First Amendment

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a landmark decision regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case centred around the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act or BCRA, which prohibited "electioneering communications" by incorporated entities.

Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organisation, challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC prevented them from promoting and airing a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the 2008 presidential primaries. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, sided with Citizens United, ruling that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including for-profits, non-profit organisations, labour unions, and other associations.

The Court held that the prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions in the BCRA violated the First Amendment, barring restrictions on corporations, unions, and non-profits from independent expenditures. This allowed these groups to independently support political candidates with financial resources. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

The Citizens United ruling was highly controversial, generating much public discussion and strong reactions from politicians, commentators, and advocacy groups. Supporters of the decision argued that it restored First Amendment rights and empowered citizens to participate in the political process. On the other hand, critics argued that it gave special interests and lobbyists more power in Washington and undermined the influence of average Americans in politics.

The Citizens United case had a significant impact on campaign finance laws, leading to the creation of super PACs and increasing the influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups in elections. It also contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups and the flow of dark money into U.S. elections.

Frequently asked questions