Citizens United v FEC

Citizens United v. FEC Summary

Billions of dollars are spent on political campaigns each election cycle, both by candidates themselves and by interest groups who advocate for or against candidates. Americans disagree, as they do on many political issues, to what extent the government should regulate political spending on campaigns.

• Many Americans believe that unlimited spending creates opportunities for corruption and shuts out candidates who may not already have a large amount of money ready to spend on their own campaigns.
• Others believe that donating and spending money on elections is a basic form of political speech covered by the First Amendment and that broad debate allows for more people to become aware of politics.

Citizens United v. FEC is a case about how corporations and other groups can spend their own money to advocate for or against a candidate.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

To understand the case of Citizens United v. FEC, you have to first understand the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). BCRA is also known as the McCain-Feingold Act after the two senators who sponsored the bill. BCRA was passed in 2002, and it intended to reduce the problem of big money in the election cycle.

Among other things, the BCRA:

• Banned soft money to political parties

• Increased limits on hard money donations to $2,000 for individuals, $5000 for PACs, and $25,000 from parties per election cycle

• Banned corporations and unions from spending their own money on campaigns. They had to create political action committees (PACs). PACs could then donate to support candidates.

• Prohibited electioneering communications on radio or TV using campaign money within 60 days of the general election

• Required candidates to sign off on political ads with “I’m (name) and I approve this message."

Citizens United

Citizens United is a non-profit conservative organization funded partially by corporate donations. In 2008, the group produced Hillary: the Movie, an unsympathetic portrait of then presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. The movie had the intention of hurting Clinton’s chance for the presidency. BCRA prevented electioneering, and the Federal Election Commission said that Hillary: The Movie was in violation of the law because it intended to influence voters within 30 days of the election.

Citizens United sued the FEC, and a district court upheld the decision made by the FEC, and ruled that Citizens United could not show the movie. Citizens United appealed the decision, and the case appeared before the Supreme Court in 2009.

The question the Court had to decide was whether a law that limits corporations and unions from spending their own money violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Arguments for Citizens United

• Freedom of Speech is vital to our democracy, and spending money on political advertisements is political speech.

• The First Amendment applies to individuals and groups equally.

• Newspapers are also corporations. If the FEC can limit the speech of corporations, could this also apply to newspapers? What prevents the FEC from regulating all the media?

• If movies about political candidates can be banned within 60 days of an election, then books should be banned as well. This amounts to government censorship.

• Spending to support a candidate does not mean that corruption is taking place.

Arguments for the FEC

• The First Amendment does not apply to corporations. The preamble states, “We the People.” It was created to protect individuals.

• Corporations have other ways to spend money on elections.

• By allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money supporting a candidate, corporations and unions will have power over that candidate.

• Even if there is no corruption, the public will see vast sums of money for candidates, and it creates the appearance of corruption. People will lose faith in the electoral process.

• The speech of wealthy corporations will drown out the speech of the less wealthy.

Citizens United v. FEC Ruling

The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United. Their decision was that the First Amendment prohibits limitations on political speech by corporations. The justices in the majority said that potential corruption, the government’s rationale for limitations on corporate speech, was not enough to restrict spending money on candidates or campaigns. Spending money on elections and candidates = Free Speech.

The Majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, who wrote

He was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented. They argued that the First Amendment protects people, not corporations. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens, said that

President Obama famously criticized the ruling in his 2010 State of the Union Address, saying the decision would

Fig. 2, Citizens United Money Globe, Wikimedia Commons

Citizens United v. FEC Constitutional Clause

The constitutional clause central to Citizens United v. FEC is the First Amendment’s free speech clause. It may not seem like a case about campaign finance has anything to do with freedom of expression, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the way private citizens, as well as corporations, spend their money on elections is considered an important part of political speech.

Citizens United v. FEC Significance

Citizens United v. FEC is a landmark Supreme Court Case, significant because it ruled that individuals, corporations, and unions could donate unlimited amounts of money to groups that make independent political expenditures. Citizens United changed the culture of campaign finance in the United States by allowing ads by groups immediately before an election, and allowing for unlimited contributions to these groups by individuals and other organizations.