Citizens United v. FEC (2010) - Case Summary

Legal Case Summary

Facts

In the run-up to the 2008 primary elections, a non-profit corporation known as Citizens United released a documentary critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) barred Citizens United from promoting the documentary, based on provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. The Act prohibited corporations and unions from airing 'electioneering communications' within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Citizens United challenged this prohibition, asserting it infringed their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Issues

At the core of this case was the issue of whether the First Amendment's protections for political speech cover corporations and other organizations. In essence, the case was about whether the government could suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. The key question before the court was whether it was consistent with the First Amendment to apply restrictions on 'electioneering communications' as articulated in the BCRA to a nonprofit corporation like Citizens United.

Analysis

The Citizens United v. FEC ruling has had far-reaching implications for campaign finance laws in the United States. It led to the rise of 'super PACs' (Political Action Committees) and massive increases in campaign spending. Critics argue that it has led to a disproportionate influence of corporations and wealthy individuals on politics and policy.

The decision also underscored the Court's growing trend towards corporate rights, sparking intense debate about the role of corporations in society and politics.

Decision

With a 5–4 majority, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. The Court held that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their treasury funds for electioneering communications. The Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, asserted that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority thus struck down the provisions of the BCRA that prohibited corporations and unions from airing electioneering communications.

References

• Kennedy, A. (2010) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310
• Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
• The First Amendment of The United States Constitution

---

Journalist Brief

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case. The court ruled that corporations and unions have the same right as individuals to fund political campaigns, essentially allowing them to spend unlimited money on politics. The decision dramatically changed the landscape of American politics, leading to the formation of Super PACs and massive increases in campaign spending. However, critics argue that it has given corporations and the wealthy too much power in politics.

FAQs

What is the significance of Citizens United v. FEC?

Answer: The decision led to the rise of 'super PACs' and massive increases in campaign spending, sparking debate about the influence of corporations and the wealthy on politics.

Did the court rule in favour of Citizens United?

Answer: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Citizens United, deciding that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment.

What law did the Citizens United v. FEC decision overturn?

Answer: The decision struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, which had placed restrictions on the 'electioneering communications' of corporations and unions.