Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Supreme Court, 2010

Facts of the Case

Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced a documentary film critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. The film, “Hillary: The Movie,” was intended for release during the 2008 primary season. Citizens United sought to run advertisements promoting the film, which would have violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. The BCRA prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for “electioneering communications” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of these provisions, arguing that they violated the First Amendment.

Constitutional Question

  1. Does the prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions for electioneering communications violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech?
  2. Do the BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering communications?

Arguments

For Citizens United:

  • The BCRA’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures are an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech.
  • The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, and this protection extends to corporations and unions.
  • The prohibition on independent expenditures by corporations and unions unfairly limits their ability to participate in the political process and express their views.

For the Federal Election Commission (FEC):

  • The BCRA’s restrictions are necessary to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in the political process.
  • Limiting corporate and union expenditures helps ensure that elections are not unduly influenced by wealthy special interests.
  • The disclosure and disclaimer requirements are essential for transparency and informing voters about who is funding election-related communications.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Citizens United. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the BCRA’s restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The Court made several key rulings:

  1. Independent Expenditures: The Court struck down the prohibition on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, stating that the government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. The majority opinion emphasized that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, and restrictions based on the speaker’s identity are not justified.
  2. Disclosure and Disclaimer Requirements: The Court upheld the BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements, finding that they serve important governmental interests in providing transparency and informing the electorate. These requirements were deemed not to impose an unconstitutional burden on free speech.

Significance

Citizens United v. FEC is a landmark case that dramatically altered the landscape of campaign finance law in the United States. The ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, leading to the rise of super PACs and a significant increase in political spending. The decision affirmed that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, regardless of the speaker’s corporate or union status. Citizens United has been highly influential and controversial, sparking ongoing debates about the role of money in politics, the influence of special interests, and the balance between free speech and the integrity of the electoral process.