Citizens United v. FEC
Background: The BCRA
Federal law, as amended by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), banned corporations and unions from spending their own treasury money on ads that expressly called for electing or defeating a candidate, or on "electioneering communications" (broadcast ads that mention a candidate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. They could only spend through a separate PAC funded by voluntary donations. BCRA also banned soft money (unlimited donations) to national parties, and federal law had long banned corporations and unions from giving money directly to candidates (corporations since the Tillman Act of 1907, unions since the 1940s).
The conflict arose when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, released Hillary: The Movie in 2008, a documentary attacking Hillary Clinton during her run in the Democratic primaries. It wanted to show the film on cable video-on-demand and run TV ads for it within 30 days of primaries, which the law banned. Citizens United sued the FEC, arguing the ban violated the First Amendment, but a lower court sided with the FEC, treating the film as a campaign ad meant to sway votes against Clinton.
The Ruling
In a contentious 5-4 decision, the Court drew a critical line:
- Corporate funding of independent political expenditures cannot be limited.
- The ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates wasn't challenged and still stands. The Court also upheld (8-1) BCRA's disclosure rules, so these ads still have to say who paid for them.
Net effect: corporations, unions, and associations can raise and spend unlimited money on independent political speech (ads, films), but still can't give money directly to a candidate.
The Debate
Majority (free speech): corporations are just associations of people, and the First Amendment protects them the same way it protects individuals. Justice Kennedy called the timing restrictions "classic censorship," arguing the law would clearly be seen as censorship if aimed at individuals, and nothing changes just because the speaker is a corporation.
Dissent (electoral integrity): Justice Stevens's lengthy dissent argued this wasn't really about speech at all, but about whether elections could be trusted. He worried the ruling would hand corporations outsized power over elections and criticized the majority for using a narrow case to rewrite campaign finance law wholesale. He saw the BCRA timing rules as legitimate time, place, and manner restrictions, not censorship.
Lasting Impact
This ruling directly led to the creation of Super PACs (independent-expenditure-only committees). The case remains central to the ongoing debate over whether campaign finance rules should prioritize free speech or election integrity.
Big picture
Citizens United essentially shifted the debate over money in politics from a question of quantity (how much can be raised) to one of proximity (how close that money gets to the candidate). Unlimited corporate spending became legal, as long as it stays independent of the campaign, which is exactly what gave rise to Super PACs.
Case Brief for the FRQ
- Year: 2010
- Facts: Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, sued the FEC so it could air and advertise Hillary: The Movie close to the 2008 primaries, which federal law banned.
- Constitutional question: Does limiting independent political spending by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech?
- Holding: 5-4, opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Political spending by corporations, associations, and labor unions is protected speech, so the government can't limit their independent expenditures. (In an 8-1 part of the ruling, the Court upheld rules requiring these ads to disclose who paid for them.)
- Reasoning: Corporations are "associations of citizens," and spending money to spread a political message is speech. Banning that speech because of who the speaker is violates the First Amendment, and independent spending (not coordinated with a campaign) doesn't create the kind of corruption that would justify a ban.
- Clause or principle: First Amendment Free Speech Clause; political spending as speech; campaign finance.
- Course connections:
- Unit 5 (5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11): EK 5.11.A.1, BCRA and the Court's ruling that political spending by corporations, associations, and unions is protected speech; EK 5.11.A.2, the debate between free speech and fair elections; EK 5.11.A.3, how PACs and super PACs raise and spend money; EK 5.10.A.1, rising campaign costs; EK 5.6.A.1, interest groups influencing elections.
- Unit 3 (3.1, 3.3): EK 3.3.A.1, the Court's broad view of what counts as protected speech.
- Unit 2 (2.13): EK 2.13.A.1, the FEC is the agency that writes and enforces campaign finance rules.
- Unit 1 (1.2): EK 1.2.A.1, pluralist democracy (many groups competing for influence) vs. elite democracy (a few wealthy donors with outsized influence).
- Compare with: Schenck v. United States and Tinker v. Des Moines (free speech cases about when speech can be limited; Citizens United extended protection to spending by groups). For a document link, Federalist No. 10 works for both sides: Madison argued that destroying liberty to stop factions would be worse than the problem itself, which lines up with the majority's view that the answer to corporate influence isn't banning corporate speech, while critics answer that Madison wanted many factions competing, not a few wealthy ones dominating (see 5.11).