SCOTUS: Citizens United v. FEC

In the world of campaign finance, few decisions have had as profound an impact as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Before this case, campaign spending laws attempted to regulate the influence of corporations and unions on elections, balancing the right to free speech with concerns about corruption. However, this balance was thrown into question in 2010, when the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that reshaped the relationship between money, politics, and free expression in the United States. At the center of the controversy was a 90-minute documentary and a question: to what extent can political spending be considered a form of speech? This is the story of Citizens United v. FEC.

The controversy began in 2008, when Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, produced Hillary: The Movie, a critical film about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The organization planned to distribute the documentary through video-on-demand services during the Democratic primaries, alongside advertisements promoting it. However, under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), corporations and unions were prohibited from using their general treasury funds for “electioneering communications” in the weeks leading up to an election. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) determined that Hillary: The Movie fell under this restriction, effectively blocking its distribution.

Citizens United, however, challenged this decision, arguing that the BCRA’s restrictions violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The case quickly escalated, reaching the Supreme Court in 2009. The arguments focused on whether limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions infringed on their ability to express political opinions. Supporters of the restrictions emphasized the risk of corruption and undue influence, while opponents argued that the government had no place in restricting the free speech of organizations, regardless of their funding sources.

In a landmark 5-4 decision issued on January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, declared that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communication by corporations, nonprofits, and unions. The court reasoned that political speech is essential to a functioning democracy, and that the identity of the speaker—whether an individual or a corporation—should not matter.

The ruling struck down portions of the BCRA, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political advocacy, so long as the spending was not directly coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. Critics of the decision, including Justice John Paul Stevens in a vehement dissent, warned that it would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. Proponents, on the other hand, hailed it as a victory for free speech and the democratic process.

The Citizens United ruling fundamentally altered the landscape of American elections, leading to the rise of Super PACs—political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, provided they operate independently of candidates. While the case remains polarizing, its legacy underscores the enduring debate over the balance between free speech and the integrity of the democratic process.

Feel free to leave your thoughts, opinions, and questions below! If you want to see more cases similar to this one, like this post to let me know!

Sources:

• https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

• https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205

• https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

• https://www.fec.gov/updates/citizens-united-v-fecsupreme-court/