This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | |
|---|---|
| Litigants | Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission |
| Arguedate | March 24, 2009 |
| Decidedate | January 21, 2010 |
| Fullname | Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission |
| Usvol | 558 |
| Uspage | 310 |
| Docket | 08-205 |
| Holding | Laws that prevent corporations and unions from making independent expenditures for political communications are unconstitutional under the First Amendment |
| Majority | Kennedy |
| Joinmajority | Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Joindissent | Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Lawsapplied | First Amendment to the United States Constitution; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark 2010 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held corporate and union funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case arose from a dispute over a documentary film about Hillary Rodham Clinton and expenditures related to federal election law. The ruling overturned prior precedents and reshaped the legal landscape for political spending by corporations, labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and other associations.
The dispute followed the release plans for "Hillary: The Movie", produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, in the 2008 primary season. Citizens United sought declaratory relief against application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), particularly provisions added following decisions like McConnell v. Federal Election Commission and statutes influenced by McCain–Feingold Act debates. Litigation proceeded through the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, implicating prior Supreme Court precedents such as Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.
The central legal issues involved interpretation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protections for political speech and the scope of BCRA restrictions on "electioneering communications" and corporate independent expenditures. Parties contested whether corporate identity (including for-profit corporations, nonprofit corporations, and labor unions) justified distinct regulatory treatment under precedents like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and Buckley v. Valeo. The case also raised questions about the application of prior standards from McConnell v. Federal Election Commission and the proper balancing of anti-corruption interests recognized in United States v. Harriss-era debates and doctrine derived from Buckley v. Valeo.
In a 5–4 opinion delivered by Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. The Court invalidated parts of BCRA that prohibited corporations and unions from making independent expenditures for "electioneering communications" or for speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate. The majority expressly overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and narrowed the reach of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission to the extent it conflicted with the Court's First Amendment analysis.
The majority opinion, authored by Anthony Kennedy, emphasized precedent from First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti and the principle that political speech does not lose protection simply because the speaker is a corporation or other associative entity. The opinion rejected anticorruption rationales that had supported expenditure limits in prior cases, asserting that independent expenditures do not give rise to quid pro quo corruption in the absence of coordination. Separate concurrences by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito elaborated on subjects like corporate personhood and the irrelevance of corporate identity to speech protection. The dissent, led by John Paul Stevens and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the decision disregarded history and precedent that permitted special regulation of corporate electioneering to prevent corrosive influence and preserve electoral integrity.
The ruling dramatically altered campaign finance practice by enabling increased independent expenditures by super PACs, political action committees, corporations, and unions, which in turn affected electoral advertising, disclosure practices, and the structure of political spending. The decision helped spur the creation and proliferation of Super PACs, which draw on subsequent jurisprudence such as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission to accept unlimited independent contributions for spending. The decision also prompted legislative responses and state-level actions, as well as efforts in the United States Congress to propose reforms and in various state courts to interpret disclosure and coordination rules under state constitutions.
Scholars, litigants, and political actors from institutions like Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Stanford Law School, and advocacy groups including American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, Citizens United itself, and Campaign Legal Center engaged in intense debate over the decision's effects on democratic processes and equality of political voice. Critics tied the ruling to increased influence by corporations such as ExxonMobil, AT&T, and Walmart in electoral politics, while defenders pointed to cases like Buckley v. Valeo and constitutional theory advanced by proponents of originalism and textualism. The ruling continues to shape litigation over disclosure, coordination, and aggregate contribution limits in cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and lower federal and state courts, and it remains a focal point in discussions about campaign finance reform, legislative proposals like the Democracy For All Amendment and advocacy by organizations such as MoveOn.org.
Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:2010 in United States case law Category:Civil liberties in the United States