Citizens United v. FEC

Definition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2010 that ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. This decision highlighted the issue of campaign finance and its implications for free speech, impacting how money is raised and spent in political campaigns.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned previous restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, leading to increased spending in elections.
2. The decision was based on the belief that limiting corporate spending would infringe upon free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
3. Following this case, there was a significant rise in the creation of Super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations, and unions for political campaigning.
4. The ruling has been controversial, with critics arguing that it allows for excessive corporate influence in politics and undermines the democratic process.
5. Citizens United has significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance, resulting in a dramatic increase in the amount of money spent on elections at all levels.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC change the landscape of campaign finance in the U.S.?
  • The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC fundamentally changed campaign finance by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political communications. This shift led to the rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unrestricted funds to support or oppose candidates. Consequently, this increased financial power shifted the dynamics of political campaigning, making it heavily reliant on large donations from corporate entities.
• Discuss the implications of Citizens United v. FEC on free speech and how it has affected political discourse.
  • Citizens United v. FEC raised important questions about free speech by equating corporate funding with individual expression. The Court argued that restrictions on corporate spending would suppress free speech rights under the First Amendment. This led to an explosion of political ads and messaging from Super PACs, drastically changing political discourse by amplifying voices with significant financial resources while potentially drowning out smaller grassroots movements and individual voters.
• Evaluate the long-term effects of Citizens United v. FEC on democratic processes and electoral integrity in the United States.
  • The long-term effects of Citizens United v. FEC on democratic processes are profound and multifaceted. By allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections, it raises concerns about electoral integrity and the potential for corruption, as candidates may become beholden to major donors rather than their constituents. Critics argue that this undermines democracy by enabling a small number of wealthy interests to exert disproportionate influence over political outcomes, thus challenging the fundamental principle of equal representation in a democratic society.

Related terms

Super PACs: Political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against candidates, as long as they do not coordinate directly with the candidates' campaigns.

First Amendment: The constitutional amendment that protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It is often cited in cases involving free speech.

Campaign Finance Reform: Legislation aimed at regulating the funding of political campaigns to ensure transparency and limit the influence of money on elections.