Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Doctrine Established:Corporate Political Speech Protection / Independent Expenditure Freedom
Why is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission significant?
Citizens United held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, and labor unions. The decision struck down key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, transforming campaign finance law and enabling unlimited corporate spending in elections.
Source: Read Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on Google Scholar
Why This Case Matters
Citizens United held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, and labor unions. The decision struck down key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, transforming campaign finance law and enabling unlimited corporate spending in elections.
Facts
Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced a documentary film called 'Hillary: The Movie,' which was critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. Citizens United wanted to distribute the film through video-on-demand within 30 days of the primaries. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as McCain-Feingold) prohibited corporations and unions from funding 'electioneering communications' -- broadcast ads mentioning a candidate -- within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Procedural History
Citizens United sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge panel denied the injunction. The Supreme Court initially heard argument on narrow grounds but ordered reargument on whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the relevant portion of McConnell v. FEC should be overruled.
Issue
Does the First Amendment permit the government to restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and other associations?
Holding
The Court held 5-4 that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the portion of McConnell v. FEC that upheld restrictions on corporate electioneering communications.
Reasoning & Analysis
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that political speech does not lose its First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation. The Court rejected the anti-distortion rationale of Austin, which had allowed restrictions on corporate speech to prevent the corrosive effects of corporate wealth on political discourse. Kennedy held that the identity of the speaker is not a permissible basis for restricting speech and that the government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. The Court upheld disclosure and disclaimer requirements as constitutional because they provide information to voters without suppressing speech.
Dissent
Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy 90-page dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, arguing that corporations are not natural persons and that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to protect corporate political spending. Stevens contended that the majority's ruling would unleash a torrent of corporate money into elections and corrupt the democratic process.
Key Quotes
“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
“The Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity.”
“A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold. -- Justice Stevens, dissenting”
Legacy & Impact
Citizens United fundamentally transformed American campaign finance by enabling unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions. The decision led to the creation of super PACs and a massive increase in outside spending in elections. The case became a lightning rod for debate about the role of money in politics and the nature of corporate personhood, inspiring proposed constitutional amendments and ongoing political controversy.
Exam Relevance
Citizens United is tested in First Amendment questions involving campaign finance, corporate speech, and the distinction between contributions and expenditures. Professors ask students to evaluate whether restrictions on corporate spending are content-based or content-neutral, and whether the anti-corruption rationale justifies speech restrictions. Students should also understand the disclosure requirements the Court upheld.
Study Tips
- 1Understand the distinction between contributions (which can be limited under Buckley) and independent expenditures (which cannot be limited after Citizens United).
- 2Know the rationales for restricting corporate speech that the Court rejected: anti-distortion, anti-corruption, and shareholder protection.
- 3Be prepared to discuss the practical impact: super PACs, dark money, and the role of corporate spending in elections.
- 4Consider the ongoing debate about whether money is speech and whether corporations have First Amendment rights.