Skip to content

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Background

  • Name of the Case: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
  • Year Decided: 2010
  • Facts: Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton, a candidate in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. The organization sought to distribute the film during the election period, which was prohibited under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. This act restricted "electioneering communications" from corporations and unions close to elections.
  • Issue: The key legal issue was whether the BCRA’s restrictions on corporate and union expenditures related to elections violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
  • Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, striking down those provisions of the BCRA that prohibited corporations and unions from funding independent political broadcasts in candidate elections.
  • Majority Decision Reasoning: The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Kennedy, held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The court asserted that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which cannot be curtailed even if the speaker is a corporation or union.
  • Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: The dissent, led by Justice Stevens, argued that the Court's decision was a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who recognize the potential for corruption in outright corporate and union spending in elections. The dissent feared that the ruling would undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.
  • Impact of the Case: The decision significantly altered the landscape of American political campaigns, leading to a dramatic increase in political spending and the rise of Super PACs, organizations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates, so long as they do not coordinate directly with campaigns or candidates. This has raised ongoing debates about the influence of money in politics and the definition of free speech.

Questions

  • Why were there restrictions on independent expenditures held in previous districts?

    Restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions were primarily imposed to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in political systems. These restrictions were meant to limit the influence that wealthy and powerful entities could exert on elections and governmental decisions, thereby protecting the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that political outcomes were determined by voters rather than money.

  • How many corporations fund electronic engineering communications? Note: The use of the term political action committee.

    This question is quite specific, and the number of corporations funding electronic engineering communications through PACs could vary significantly. Generally, corporations in the technology and electronics sectors might use PACs to support candidates or legislation that favor their business interests, but specific numbers would require access to detailed campaign finance reports.

  • What does the First Amendment protect?

    The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects several basic freedoms in the United States including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Regarding speech, it includes the right to express ideas and information without government interference or regulation.

  • How could Citizens United have broadcast Hillary the Movie without violating the law?

    Citizens United could have broadcast "Hillary: The Movie" without violating federal campaign finance laws by framing it as a form of legitimate political speech protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruled that the government cannot limit independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, effectively allowing them to spend on political broadcasts like "Hillary: The Movie."

  • How does Justice Stevens define corruption?

    Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent in Citizens United v. FEC, defined corruption broadly to include not only outright bribery but also practices that lead to undue influence on elected officials. This broader definition includes the concept of "ingratiation and access" which are seen as subtler forms of corruption that may not be as blatant as quid pro quo arrangements but still pose a threat to democratic integrity and public trust.

  • How does the dissent distinguish between corporations and people? What is the result of allowing corporations to run political ads until election day?

    The dissent in Citizens United argued that corporations, unlike individuals, are artificial entities created by the laws of states primarily to make profits. As such, they have different rights and limitations compared to natural persons. Allowing corporations to run political ads up until election day, the dissent argued, could lead to an overwhelming influence of corporate interests over the political landscape, overshadowing the voices of actual voters and potentially leading to policy outcomes that favor corporate interests over public welfare.

  • Why does the dissent believe that the majority decisions endangers democratic values?

    The dissent believes that the majority decision in Citizens United endangers democratic values by effectively increasing the power of a wealthy few (i.e., corporate entities and other affluent groups) at the expense of the general electorate. This perceived shift in power dynamics is feared to lead to a form of governance more responsive to the needs and wants of powerful economic entities than to the electorate at large, undermining the fundamental democratic principle of government by the people.