Citizens United v. FEC

Citizens United v. FEC
AI-generated (Stable Diffusion 3.5) · CC BY 4.0 · source
Litigants	Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
ArgueDate	March 24, 2009
ReargueDate	September 9, 2009
DecideDate	January 21, 2010
FullName	Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Citations	558 U.S. 310
Prior	Summary judgment granted to FEC, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008); probable jurisdiction noted, 555 U.S. 1093 (2009).
Subsequent	None
Holding	The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
SCOTUS	2009–2010
Majority	Kennedy
JoinMajority	Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas (Parts I, II, and IV)
Concurrence	Roberts
Concurrence2	Scalia
Dissent	Stevens
JoinDissent	Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
LawsApplied	U.S. Const. amend. I; 2 U.S.C. § 441b

Citizens United v. FEC is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that fundamentally reshaped campaign finance law. The ruling held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other associations. This decision invalidated key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and led to the creation of Super PACs, dramatically altering the political fundraising landscape. The case originated from a dispute over a critical film about Hillary Clinton produced by the conservative nonprofit Citizens United.

Background and legal context

The legal dispute began when Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced a documentary film titled Hillary: The Movie that was critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign. The organization sought to distribute the film via video-on-demand within 30 days of the 2008 presidential primaries, which the Federal Election Commission argued violated the electioneering communication restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain–Feingold Act. This law, championed by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" that referred to a candidate for federal office immediately before an election. The case built upon a long line of campaign finance jurisprudence, including Buckley v. Valeo, which distinguished between contributions and expenditures, and McConnell v. FEC, which had upheld the BCRA's core provisions. The litigation was presided over by Judge Royce Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia before reaching the high court.

Supreme Court decision

In a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. The majority held that Section 203 of the BCRA, which banned corporate independent expenditures for electioneering communications, was an unconstitutional restriction on political speech under the First Amendment. The opinion explicitly overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had allowed restrictions on corporate political speech to prevent the "corrosive and distorting effects" of immense aggregations of wealth, and partially overruled McConnell v. FEC. Justice Kennedy argued that political speech is indispensable to a democracy and that the government lacks the power to ban political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia filed concurring opinions. A passionate dissent was filed by Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, warning that the ruling threatened to undermine the integrity of elected institutions.

Implications and impact

The decision had immediate and profound consequences for American politics. It led directly to the rise of Super PACs (independent-expenditure only political action committees), which can raise and spend unlimited sums from corporations, unions, and individuals, provided they do not coordinate with candidates' campaigns. This resulted in a massive influx of money into federal elections, notably in the 2012 and 2016 presidential cycles. The ruling also strengthened the legal framework for Dark money in politics, as it allowed certain nonprofit groups like 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations to spend on politics without disclosing their donors. Critics argue it increased the political influence of wealthy donors and large corporations, while supporters contend it expanded free speech rights and enabled broader political participation.

Public and political reaction

The ruling ignited intense and enduring controversy across the political spectrum. President Barack Obama famously criticized the decision during his 2010 State of the Union Address, with several justices in attendance. Congressional Democrats, including Senator Charles Schumer and then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, denounced the ruling and proposed legislative responses like the DISCLOSE Act, which faced Republican opposition. The decision became a major rallying point for progressive activists and groups like MoveOn.org and Common Cause, who argued it represented a form of legalized corruption. Conversely, many conservatives and libertarian groups, including the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice, praised the decision as a victory for free speech. The case remains a central reference point in debates over constitutional law, corporate personhood, and money in politics.

Subsequent developments and related cases

In the years following the decision, the Supreme Court continued to dismantle campaign finance restrictions on similar grounds. In SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit applied the precedent to create the legal basis for Super PACs. The Court's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC further struck down aggregate limits on individual campaign contributions. However, the core holding has faced significant challenges, including a sustained movement for a constitutional amendment to overturn it, supported by figures like Senator Bernie Sanders. The issue of disclosure was addressed in cases like Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, where the Court ruled against certain donor disclosure requirements. The principles established continue to influence lower court rulings on state-level campaign finance laws and remain a defining feature of the Roberts Court's First Amendment jurisprudence.

Category:United States campaign finance case law Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:2010 in United States case law