Citizens United & Campaign Finance

The U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

https://britannica.com/...Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission

The American Civil Liberties Union & Citizens United

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft.

Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights.
Others see corporations and unions as legitimate participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-citizens-united

How Does the Citizens United Decision Still Affect Us in 2022?

The Court assumed that unlimited corporate campaign spending would pose no threat of corruption or the appearance of corruption because it would be “independent.”

However, it has become clear in the years since that voters are not getting enough information about the true sources of campaign spending and this supposedly independent spending in support of candidates or their campaigns is often intentionally coordinated.

Thus, we are left with a campaign finance system where wealthy special interests can use unlimited secret spending to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

One way this has occurred is through creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from nearly any non-foreign source and spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of federal elections.

Super PACs are theoretically required to be transparent about where their money comes from by reporting their fundraising and spending to the FEC. But that transparency is undermined when super PACs report contributions from secretly funded “dark money” groups, which themselves keep their donors hidden from the public.

Simply knowing that a super PAC is mostly or entirely funded by a vaguely named group that doesn’t disclose its funding denies voters crucial information.

This is a bipartisan problem. Major super PACs aligned with the leadership of both parties have received tens of millions of dollars, and in some cases most or all of their funding, from groups that keep their donors hidden from the public.

It has also become a growing problem as each respective election cycle has seen record-breaking amounts of spending. Campaign spending by corporations and other outside groups increased by nearly 900% between 2008 and 2016. In 2020, total election spending was $14.4 billion, up from $5.7 billion in 2018, and more than $1 billion in dark money was spent.

Additionally, even though it’s illegal for outside groups to coordinate election spending with candidates or political parties, many do because by and large, the FEC has failed to crack down on candidates and super PACs that work hand-in-glove.

https://campaignlegal.org/...how-does-citizens-united-decision-still-affect-us-2022

More Money, Less Transparency:

A decade under Citizens United
https://www.opensecrets.org/

The proliferation of controversial political advertisements in the past decade isn't a coincidence. It's a direct result of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which helped pump billions of dollars into politics from outside sources that are supposed to be untethered from candidates or political parties.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the longstanding prohibition on independent expenditures by corporations violated the First Amendment. With its decision, the court allowed corporations, including nonprofits, and labor unions to spend unlimited sums to support or oppose political candidates. The majority made the case that political spending from independent actors, even from powerful corporations, was not a corrupting influence on those in office.

The decade that followed was by far the most expensive in the history of U.S. elections. Independent groups spent billions to influence crucial races, supplanting political parties and morphing into extensions of candidate campaigns. Wealthy donors flexed their expanded political power by injecting unprecedented sums into elections. And transparency eroded as "dark money" groups, keeping their sources of funding secret, emerged as political powerhouses.

The explosion of big money and secret spending wasn't spurred on by Citizens United alone. It was enabled by a number of court decisions that surgically removed several restrictions in campaign finance law, and emboldened by inaction from Congress and gridlock within the Federal Election Commission.

OpenSecrets' original research indicates:

Despite fears that elections would be dominated by corporations, the biggest political players are actually wealthy individual donors. The 10 most generous donors and their spouses injected $1.2 billion into federal elections over the last decade. That tiny group of major donors accounted for 7 percent of total election-related giving in 2018, up from less than 1 percent a decade prior.
The balance of political power shifted from political parties to outside groups that can spend unlimited sums to bolster their preferred candidates. Election-related spending from non-party independent groups ballooned to $4.5 billion over the decade. It totaled just $750 million over the two decades prior.
Even political candidates found themselves dwarfed by independent groups that in many cases morphed into effective arms of political campaigns and parties. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling. That happened just 15 times in the five election cycles prior.
Despite promises from the court that monied interests would be required to reveal their political giving, the ruling gave new powers to dark money organizations. Groups that don't disclose their donors flooded elections with $963 million in outside spending, compared to a paltry $129 million over the previous decade.
Major corporations didn't take full advantage of their new political powers. Corporations accounted for no more than one-tenth of independent groups' fundraising in each election cycle since the ruling. But secretly funded nonprofits and trade associations that influence elections take money from major companies in amounts that are mostly unknown.
The ruling didn't reverse the ban on foreign money in elections, but it provided opportunities for foreign actors to secretly funnel money to elections through nonprofits and shell companies.

More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/a-decade-under-citizens-united

Citizens United Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations - The Brennan Center

January 21, 2020 will mark a decade since the Supreme Court’s ruling inCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.

While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.

What was Citizens United about?

A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.

What was the rationale for the ruling?

In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.

With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.

How has Citizens United changed elections in the United States?

The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.

In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech. But perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.

A Brennan Center report by Daniel I. Weiner pointed out that a very small group of Americans now wield “more power than at any time since Watergate, while many of the rest seem to be disengaging from politics.“

“This is perhaps the most troubling result of Citizens United: in a time of historic wealth inequality,” wrote Weiner, “the decision has helped reinforce the growing sense that our democracy primarily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that democratic participation for the vast majority of citizens is of relatively little value.”

An election system that is skewed heavily toward wealthy donors also sustains racial bias and reinforces the racial wealth gap. Citizens United also unleashed political spending from special interest groups.

What are PACs and super PACs?

Political action committees, or “PACs,” are organizations that raise and spend money for campaigns that support or oppose political candidates, legislation, or ballot initiatives. Traditional PACs are permitted to donate directly to a candidate’s official campaign, but they are also subject to contribution limits, both in terms of what they can receive from individuals and what they can give to candidates. For example, PACs are only permitted to contribute up to $5,000 per year to a candidate per election.

In the 2010 case Speechnow.org v. FEC, however, a federal appeals court ruled — applying logic from Citizens United — that outside groups could accept unlimited contributions from both individual donors and corporations as long as they don’t give directly to candidates. Labeled “super PACs,” these outside groups were still permitted to spend money on independently produced ads and on other communications that promote or attack specific candidates.

In other words, super PACs are not bound by spending limits on what they can collect or spend. Additionally, super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but those donors can include dark money groups, which make the original source of the donations unclear. And while super PACs are technically prohibited from coordinating directly with candidates, weak coordination rules have often proven ineffective.

Super PAC money started influencing elections almost immediately after Citizens United. From 2010 to 2018, super PACs spent approximately $2.9 billion on federal elections. Notably, the bulk of that money comes from just a few wealthy individual donors. In the 2018 election cycle, for example, the top 100 donors to super PACs contributed nearly 78 percent of all super PAC spending.

What is dark money?

Dark money is election-related spending where the source is secret. Citizens United contributed to a major jump in this type of spending, which often comes from nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors.

In its decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that unlimited spending by wealthy donors and corporations would not distort the political process, because the public would be able to see who was paying for ads and “give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” But in reality, the voters often cannot know who is actually behind campaign spending.

That’s because leading up to Citizens United, transparency in U.S. elections had started to erode, thanks to a disclosure loophole opened by the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, along with inaction by the IRS and controversial rulemaking by the FEC.

Citizens United allowed big political spenders to exploit the growing lack of transparency in political spending. This has contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups in federal elections. Dark money expenditures increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to more than $300 million in the 2012 election cycle and more than $174 million in the 2014 midterms. In the top 10 most competitive 2014 Senate races, more than 71 percent of the outside spending on the winning candidates was dark money. These numbers actually underestimate the impact of dark money on recent elections, because they do not include super PAC spending that may have originated with dark money sources, or spending that happens outside the “electioneering communications window” 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.

Finally, because they can hide the identities of their donors, dark money groups also provide a way for foreign countries to hide their activity from U.S. voters and law enforcement agencies. This increases the vulnerability of U.S. elections to international interference.

How can reformers address the consequences of Citizens United?

In the short term, a Supreme Court reversal or constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United is extremely unlikely, and regardless, it would leave many of the problems of big money in politics unsolved. But even without a full reversal of Citizens United in the near future, there are policy solutions to help combat the dominance of big money in politics and the lack of transparency in the U.S. campaign finance system.

First, publicly funded elections would help counter the influence of the extremely wealthy by empowering small donors. Specifically, a system that matches small-dollar donations with public funds would expand the role of small donors and help candidates rely less on big checks and special interests. In recent years, public financing has gained support across the United States. As of 2018, 24 municipalities and 14 states have enacted some form of public financing, and at least 124 winning congressional candidates voiced support for public financing during the 2018 midterm election cycle.

Lawmakers on the national, state, and local level can also push to increase transparency in election spending. For example, the DISCLOSE Act, which has been introduced several times in Congress, would strengthen disclosure and disclaimer requirements, enabling voters to know who is trying to influence their votes. Congress could also pass stricter rules to prevent super PACs and other outside groups from coordinating directly with campaigns and political parties.

Fixing the U.S. elections system will also require fixing the FEC.

Long dysfunctional thanks to partisan gridlock, the FEC is out of touch with today’s election landscape and has failed to update campaign finance safeguards to reflect current challenges. For example, FEC rules do not even include the term “super PAC,” and it has declined to find violations or even open an investigation in high-profile allegations of coordination. The agency’s failure to enforce federal disclosure laws helped allow dark money to pour into U.S. federal elections since 2010.

In an April 2019 report, the Brennan Center outlined a number of structural reforms that Congress can pursue to help tackle dysfunction in the FEC.

Finally, addressing the impacts of Citizens United requires building a movement in favor of campaign finance reform. There’s public support for such reforms. In recent polls, 94 percent of Americans blamed wealthy political donors for political dysfunction, and 77 percent of registered voters said that “reducing the influence of special interests and corruption in Washington” was either the “single most” or a “very important” factor in deciding their vote for Congress.

Citizens United was a blow to democracy — but it doesn’t have to be the final word. Politicians can listen to what the vast majority of the public wants, even if big donors don’t like it.

Citizens United Explained
The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Facts of the Case - www.oyez.org

Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.

In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201 and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.

Citizens United argued that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances.

The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section 203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.

Question

1) Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional?

2) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"?

3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA?

4) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

Conclusion

No. No. Yes. Yes. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205

Corporate Personhood For & Against;

Arguments For Corporate Personhood

There are strong arguments in favor of personhood. Even if they are limited, corporations need some rights to exist. Without these rights, few businesses would succeed.

Some of the best arguments for personhood include:

World Peace: This idea enables businesses in different countries to work together. When countries are tied together, arguments aren't as common. It also means that problems between countries are fixed much more quickly. Personhood leads to world peace.
Competition: Personhood protects corporations from liability. This allows them to take risks and expand. Without this protection, it would be difficult for corporations to compete in the marketplace. Less competition hurts both consumers and corporations, which is why personhood is important.
Global Stability: Personhood allows for multinational corporations. This means one company can operate in many different countries. The protections of personhood defend company owners from liability, which encourages them to expand internationally. Multinational corporations increase economic bonds between countries and leads to increased global stability.
Legal Distinction: Personhood is a legal distinction. It is used for both corporations and people. This designation is a way to define bestow rights, outline legal entitities, and define liability. Because personhood is only used as a legal distinction, and not a value judgment, it does not put corporations on the same level as natural people.
People Create Corporations: Regular people create and run corporations. Protecting corporations means protecting the people who created them. Personhood is important because it benefits the people who start and run businesses.
It's in the Dictionary: The dictionary defines corporations as people in some cases.
It's a Legal Definition: Personhood is a legal definition. It does not make businesses equal or more valuable than regular people. The only reason for personhood is to protect businesses. Personhood is not meant to harm people. Without personhood, a business could be unfairly harmed by laws or regulations.
Personhood Protects People: A business is made up of its people. Personhood protects both a business and the people who work for it. If a business does something illegal, personhood makes sure the people who work for the business are not harmed. Personhood also makes it easier for a small business to compete with larger businesses. It evens the playing field for everyone involved in business.
Taking Part in a Business: To work at a business, you have to give up some of your rights. However, giving up these rights often leads to big benefits in the future. If personhood did not exist, you would not be able to give up these rights and take part in a business. Personhood enables businesses and employees to work together to succeed. Personhood leads to opportunity.

Arguments Against Corporate Personhood

Many people disagree with personhood. They don't feel businesses should have the same rights as people. However, getting rid of personhood would be very difficult. It would also be harmful to businesses everywhere. People against personhood don't feel it's fair that a wealthy business has the same rights as its workers. They feel like personhood gives businesses more power than real people.

The best arguments against personhood are:

Businesses Are Not Real: The main reason to not have personhood is that businesses do not exist in reality. A business mostly exists on paper. Giving a business the same rights as people doesn't make sense because they are not people in any real way.
Lack of Morality: Those against corporate personhood argue that corporations cannot be people because they lack morality. Morality is key to the social compact, and without morality a corporation cannot fully join the social compact. Since a corporation does not have morality, and is only motivated by profit, it does not deserve the rights of a real person.
Only People Deserve Rights: A business needs some rights to be able to succeed. However, it does not deserve the same rights as a real person. If a business is given personhood, it means it has more power than a real person. Many people believe this is unfair because a business cannot be harmed in the same way a person can. Rights belong to people, not businesses.
Personhood is for Citizens: A business cannot be a citizen of a country. In fact, most businesses work in many countries. If a business can't be a citizen, then it does not deserve personhood. Rights are supposed to protect a citizen of a country. Citizens can vote. Businesses are not allowed to vote. This means they are not citizens and do not deserve rights.
Businesses Are Not Alive: A big part of personhood is feelings. Businesses have no feelings because they are not people. A business can't live. It can't die. Businesses do not feel love, get married, or have children. If a business is not alive, then it is not a person and does not deserve personhood.
Businesses Only Want to Make Money: Real people know the difference between right and wrong. They understand why it's wrong to hurt another person. Businesses are not people, so they don't know the difference between right and wrong. The only thing a business cares about is making money. This can end up hurting regular people. Not knowing right from wrong means that a business should not be given personhood.

Corporate Personhood: Everything You Need to Know

https://www.upcounsel.com/corporate-personhood

Thom Hartmann | Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became 'People' and How You Can Fight Back

How did we get to the point where a for-profit corporation can lay claim to religious rights? Ciara Torres-Spelliscy on the slithering history of corporate personhood.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-corporate-personhood

Does “We the People” Include Corporations?

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/we-the-people/we-the-people-corporations/

Reclaim Democracy - Corporate Personhood links
https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-personhood/

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Primary tabs

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is the 2010 Supreme Court case that held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting independent expenditures on political campaigns by groups such as corporations or labor unions. (Read the opinion here; find oral arguments here).

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act) prohibited corporations and unions from using their general funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as “electioneering communication.” An electioneering communication is defined as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made with 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election. In addition, BCRA required televised electioneering communications funded by anyone other than a candidate to include a disclaimer. Furthermore, any person who spends more than $10,000 on electioneering communications must file a disclosure statement with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). (Read LII’s Overview of BCRA here).

Previously, the Court in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld a state prohibition of an independent corporate expenditure in support of a candidate for state office. The Court in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) held that the “electioneering communication” prohibition in BCRA was facially constitutional “insofar as it restricted speech that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”

Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, desired to air and advertise Hillary: The Movie, a film critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, ahead of the 2008 Democratic primary elections. In December 2007, Citizens United sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the FEC because Citizens United feared that, under Austin and McConnell, BCRA would prevent the airing and advertising of Hillary. The District Court denied Citizens United’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Court began its opinion, delivered by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Breyer, by considering whether BRCA is applicable in this case. Citizens United contended that the film does not qualify as an “electioneering communication,” and thus BRCA does not apply. The Court rejected Citizens United’s argument by finding that Hillary is an appeal to vote against Clinton and qualifies as “the functional equivalent of express advocacy.” Therefore, under the test in McConnell, BCRA prohibits Citizens United from airing or advertising the film, Hillary.

After deciding that BCRA applies, the Court considered whether the provisions in BCRA that prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for “electioneering communication” is facially constitutional under the free speech clause of the First Amendment. (Compare: unconstitutional).

The free speech clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The Constitution requires that laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest” (see Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.).

After holding that BCRA’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditure burdens political speech, the Court turned to whether the prohibition “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” The Court first looked at Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978). These two cases recognized only “the prevention of [quid pro quo] corruption and the appearance of corruption” as a compelling governmental interest. In addition, these two cases prohibited the Government from restricting political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.

In Austin, however, the Court found that an anti-distortion interest as another compelling governmental interest in limiting political speech. It held that the Government had a compelling interest in preventing the “distortion effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” In addition, Austin permitted restrictions based on the speaker’s corporate identity.

To address the conflicting lines of precedent, the Court turned to the purpose of political speech. The Court held that political speech is “indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.” In addition, the Court relied on the reasoning in Buckley, which rejected the premise that the Government has an interest in equalizing relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections. The Court concluded that Austin’s anti-distortion rationale interfered with the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment. The Court overturned Austin and part of McConnell which held that prohibition on corporate independent expenditure is constitutional.

The Court then addressed the constitutionality of the disclaimer and disclosure provisions in BRCA. Although the disclaimer and disclosure provisions may burden the ability to speak, the Court found that they do not impose a ceiling on campaign-related activities and do not prevent anyone from speaking.

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, dissented by arguing that the Court’s ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions.” Justice Stevens contends that the majority should not limit corruption as strictly quid pro quo exchanges.

The outcome of this case was highly controversial. President Obama, during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stated that the holding in Citizens United would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections” while the American Civil Liberties Union has supported the Court’s ruling in this case. Some scholars have attributed the creation of “Super PACS” to this ruling.

Related cases: