key term - Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Definition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2010 that ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as they do so independently of a candidate's campaign. This decision expanded the concept of free speech under the First Amendment, establishing that spending money in elections is a form of protected speech and reshaping the landscape of campaign finance in the United States.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Citizens United decision overruled previous rulings that limited corporate and union spending in elections, significantly changing campaign finance laws.
2. The case arose from a challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) which restricted independent expenditures by corporations and unions shortly before elections.
3. Following this ruling, the creation of Super PACs became widespread, allowing for massive sums of money to flow into political campaigns without direct ties to candidates.
4. Critics argue that Citizens United leads to corruption and undermines democracy by giving wealthy individuals and corporations disproportionate influence over elections.
5. The ruling has sparked ongoing debates about the role of money in politics and calls for reforms to campaign finance laws in an effort to reduce its impact.

Review Questions

• How did the Citizens United case redefine the relationship between money and free speech in American politics?
  • The Citizens United case fundamentally changed how money is viewed in relation to free speech by establishing that financial contributions for political campaigns are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This decision allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political advocacy, significantly expanding their influence in elections. The ruling suggests that limiting these expenditures would infringe upon their right to express their views through financial support.
• Evaluate the impact of the Citizens United decision on campaign finance regulations and electoral dynamics in the U.S.
  • The impact of the Citizens United decision on campaign finance has been profound, leading to the rise of Super PACs that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independently from candidates. This change has created a new dynamic in electoral politics where wealth plays an increasingly critical role in shaping election outcomes. The resulting influx of money from corporations and wealthy donors raises concerns about transparency and accountability in political funding, prompting discussions about potential reforms to restore balance in electoral processes.
• Analyze how Citizens United v. FEC has influenced public perception of democracy and political representation in the United States.
  • The Citizens United v. FEC ruling has significantly influenced public perception of democracy and political representation by raising questions about who truly holds power in the political system. With corporations and wealthy individuals able to exert greater influence through unlimited spending, many citizens feel that their voices are drowned out by moneyed interests, which undermines trust in democratic processes. This perceived imbalance can lead to disillusionment with government institutions and increased calls for reform aimed at reducing the impact of money on politics, emphasizing the need for a more equitable representation of all citizens' interests.

Related terms

Super PACs:

Political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates, but cannot coordinate directly with candidates' campaigns.

Soft Money:

Funds raised by political parties or organizations for purposes other than supporting a specific candidate, often used for party-building activities and not subject to federal contribution limits.

First Amendment:

The amendment to the United States Constitution that protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition, which has been interpreted to include campaign spending.