Citizens United v. FEC

The ruling in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) is one of the most significant decisions in recent U.S. Supreme Court history, particularly with regard to campaign finance and the influence of money in politics.

Case Background:

The case arose from a dispute involving Citizens United, a nonprofit organization that sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election. The organization wanted to distribute the film through on-demand cable services, but feared that it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) because the law restricted corporations and unions from making independent expenditures (spending money to influence elections) in the form of broadcast ads within a certain period before an election.

Citizens United argued that these restrictions violated their First Amendment right to free speech.

The Supreme Court's Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United, striking down key provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act (officially the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or BCRA), which had placed limits on corporate and union spending on political advertisements.

Key points of the ruling:

1. Corporations and Unions Have Free Speech Rights: The Court held that corporations, unions, and other associations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals when it comes to political speech. This decision overturned previous rulings that allowed restrictions on corporate spending in elections.

2. Independent Expenditures: The ruling specifically focused on independent political expenditures. The Court found that government restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions were unconstitutional because they infringed upon free speech.

3. No Distinction Between Individuals and Corporations: The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, argued that political speech is essential to democracy and that limiting the speech of corporations and unions would unfairly restrict their ability to participate in the political process. The Court stated that corporations could spend money independently on elections, just as individuals could, because such spending is a form of political speech.

4. Super PACs: The ruling led to the rise of Super PACs (Political Action Committees), which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and individuals on political campaigns, as long as the spending is independent and not coordinated directly with a candidate's campaign.

Dissenting Opinion:

The four dissenting justices (led by Justice John Paul Stevens) argued that the decision would lead to increased corruption in politics and would disproportionately empower wealthy corporations and individuals. They feared that it would drown out the voices of ordinary citizens and undermine the democratic process.

Key Impact of the Ruling:

• Increased Political Spending: After the ruling, there was a significant increase in political spending, especially by corporations and outside groups. The decision effectively opened the floodgates for "dark money" in elections, where large amounts of money can be spent anonymously.

• Rise of Super PACs: The ruling was a key factor in the rise of Super PACs, which can now accept unlimited contributions and spend vast sums on political advertising. These groups can influence elections without directly coordinating with candidates or parties.

• Debate on Campaign Finance: Citizens United sparked a nationwide debate over the role of money in politics. Critics argue that it gives undue influence to wealthy individuals and corporations, while supporters claim that it upholds free speech principles.

In summary, Citizens United v. FEC ruled that restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions violate the First Amendment, leading to a dramatic shift in how elections are financed and how political speech is protected in the U.S.