South Dakota
How Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission applies in South Dakota: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
In South Dakota, the principles established in Citizens United are recognized in the context of campaign finance regulations. The state acknowledges the federal standard that spending on independent political expenditures cannot be limited, emphasizing the importance of free speech in political discourse.
Under South Dakota law, independent expenditure committees can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in connection with political campaigns, consistent with the ruling in Citizens United.
The court upheld that independent expenditures are protected free speech and cannot be subject to prior restraints similar to those invalidated in Citizens United.
The court ruled that restrictions on the amount individuals can contribute to independent expenditure committees do not stand because they interfere with political expression rights.
South Dakota's approach aligns closely with the federal standard established in Citizens United, reinforcing the idea that independent political expenditures reflect free speech. However, South Dakota has also considered state interests in regulating transparency and disclosure, adding a layer that is not explicitly addressed in the federal context.
Candidates may need to understand the implications of Citizens United on South Dakota's campaign finance laws, as well as the interplay between state regulations and federal constitutional protections.