Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Definition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2010 that ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts cannot be limited under the First Amendment. This decision expanded the concept of free speech by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, significantly impacting how interest groups can influence elections and public policy.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The ruling in Citizens United was based on the belief that spending money is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, thus preventing the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communication.
2. Before Citizens United, federal laws imposed restrictions on corporate spending in elections, aiming to limit the influence of money in politics.
3. The decision led to a significant increase in political spending by corporations and unions, reshaping campaign finance dynamics in the U.S.
4. Following the ruling, many Super PACs emerged, leading to unprecedented levels of spending in elections and raising concerns about transparency and accountability in campaign financing.
5. Critics argue that Citizens United has contributed to the growing problem of money in politics, enabling wealthy individuals and entities to have disproportionate influence over elections and policy decisions.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC redefine the concept of free speech?
  • The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC redefined free speech by asserting that spending money on political campaigns is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This interpretation allowed corporations and unions to contribute unlimited amounts to independent political expenditures, fundamentally changing the landscape of campaign finance. The ruling emphasized the idea that restrictions on financial contributions could hinder free expression, ultimately broadening what constitutes free speech in the context of political activities.
• What are the implications of Citizens United for interest groups and their role in elections?
  • The implications of Citizens United for interest groups are profound, as it allows them to mobilize substantial financial resources without limits on their expenditures for independent political advocacy. This has resulted in a surge of funding for campaigns through Super PACs, enabling interest groups to exert greater influence on electoral outcomes and legislative processes. The decision has led to an environment where candidates often rely on major donors and corporate contributions, raising concerns about the potential for policy outcomes that favor wealthy interests over the public good.
• Evaluate the long-term effects of Citizens United v. FEC on democratic processes and public trust in government.
  • The long-term effects of Citizens United v. FEC on democratic processes are complex and controversial. While proponents argue that it enhances free speech and allows for greater participation in the political process, critics contend that it undermines democracy by allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to dominate political discourse. This has potentially eroded public trust in government institutions as citizens may feel their voices are marginalized compared to those with significant financial resources. Over time, this disparity in influence could lead to policies that prioritize elite interests rather than reflecting the needs and desires of the general populace, further challenging democratic accountability.

Related terms

First Amendment:

The amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

Political Action Committee (PAC): An organization that raises and spends money to elect or defeat candidates, typically associated with a specific interest group.

Super PAC: A type of independent political action committee that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions, but cannot coordinate directly with candidates or political parties.