Citizens United v. FEC

Definition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2010 that ruled that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and unions under the First Amendment. This decision effectively allowed unlimited spending in political campaigns, fundamentally altering the landscape of campaign finance and raising questions about the influence of money in politics.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Citizens United decision overturned previous restrictions on corporate spending in elections, which were upheld by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002.
2. Following this ruling, there was a significant increase in campaign spending by corporations and wealthy individuals, leading to concerns over the disproportionate influence on elections.
3. The case originated from a documentary film produced by Citizens United that criticized Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primaries.
4. The ruling has been criticized for contributing to a system where political candidates rely heavily on large donations and special interest groups.
5. Citizens United v. FEC has led to the rise of Super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from various sources to support or oppose candidates without coordinating directly with their campaigns.

Review Questions

• How did the Citizens United v. FEC ruling impact the nature of campaign financing in American politics?
  • The Citizens United v. FEC ruling drastically changed campaign financing by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. This led to an increase in Super PACs, which could raise vast sums of money without strict limits. Consequently, candidates became more reliant on large donations, raising concerns about the potential for corruption and the undermining of democratic processes due to increased corporate influence.
• What are some of the key arguments made by both supporters and opponents of the Citizens United decision regarding free speech and campaign finance?
  • Supporters of the Citizens United decision argue that it protects free speech by allowing corporations and unions to express their views through financial support for candidates. They contend that limiting spending would infringe upon First Amendment rights. On the other hand, opponents argue that allowing unlimited corporate spending undermines democracy by enabling wealthy entities to exert disproportionate influence over elections, drowning out the voices of average voters and leading to a system where policy favors those with deep pockets.
• Evaluate the long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC on American democracy and electoral integrity.
  • The long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC on American democracy are significant, as it has fostered an environment where money plays an increasingly central role in elections. This shift raises critical questions about electoral integrity, as candidates may prioritize the interests of major donors over their constituents. Furthermore, it can lead to voter disenfranchisement if citizens feel their voices are overshadowed by powerful financial interests, potentially eroding trust in the democratic process and prompting calls for further campaign finance reform.

Related terms

Super PACs: Political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions to advocate for or against political candidates.

First Amendment: Part of the Bill of Rights that protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition; crucial in the Citizens United case as it was used to argue against restrictions on political spending.

Campaign Finance Reform: Legislation aimed at regulating the financing of political campaigns to reduce corruption and limit the influence of money in politics.