Legal Definitions - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

The term Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) refers to a landmark United States Supreme Court case that significantly altered campaign finance law.

In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech prohibits the government from restricting independent political spending by corporations and labor unions in candidate elections. The Court reasoned that political speech is essential to a democracy, and the identity of the speaker—whether an individual, a corporation, or a union—does not diminish the importance of that speech. Therefore, limiting such spending based on the speaker's corporate or union status was deemed unconstitutional.

This ruling effectively struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold), which had placed limits on "electioneering communications" by these groups, particularly close to an election. While the Court affirmed that the government cannot restrict independent expenditures, it did uphold requirements for organizations to disclose who is funding their political advertisements and to include disclaimers on those ads.

The *Citizens United* decision is highly controversial and has had a profound impact on American elections, leading to a significant increase in independent political spending and the rise of "Super PACs."

Here are some examples illustrating the impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

• Example 1: A Tech Company Funding a Ballot Initiative Campaign

  Imagine a major technology company that wants to influence a state ballot initiative concerning data privacy regulations. Under the principles established in Citizens United, this company can use an unlimited amount of money from its general treasury to run extensive television commercials, digital advertising campaigns, and direct mailers urging voters to support or oppose the initiative. These expenditures are permissible as long as the company's efforts are conducted independently and not coordinated with any official campaign committee for or against the ballot measure.

  This example illustrates how a for-profit corporation can spend freely to influence policy outcomes through ballot initiatives, reflecting the Court's view that such spending is a form of protected free speech, regardless of the speaker's corporate identity.

• Example 2: A Labor Union Supporting a Congressional Candidate

  Consider a large national labor union that strongly believes a particular candidate for a U.S. House of Representatives seat will best advocate for workers' rights. Thanks to the Citizens United ruling, the union can use its general funds to produce and air commercials, publish full-page newspaper advertisements, and launch social media campaigns that explicitly endorse this candidate and criticize their opponent. These activities are allowed without spending limits, provided they are not coordinated with the candidate's official campaign staff or strategy.

  This demonstrates how a labor union, like a corporation, can engage in significant independent expenditures to support or oppose political candidates, highlighting the Court's extension of free speech rights to these organized groups in the context of elections.

• Example 3: An Environmental Advocacy Group Producing a Critical Documentary

  Suppose an environmental advocacy organization, structured as a non-profit corporation, is deeply concerned about a presidential candidate's past environmental record. Following the precedent set by Citizens United, this group can produce and widely distribute a feature-length documentary film, run online advertisements promoting it, and create a dedicated website detailing the candidate's environmental policies and actions. All these efforts can be funded by the organization's general treasury without financial limits, as long as they are independent of any official political campaign.

  This example showcases how non-profit corporations can also leverage the ruling to engage in extensive political speech, including critical commentary on candidates, using their general funds without government-imposed spending caps, reinforcing the idea that the source of the funds does not justify restricting political expression.