Citizens United v. FEC

Definition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2010 that ruled that political spending by corporations and unions is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This decision fundamentally changed the landscape of campaign finance by allowing these entities to spend unlimited amounts on political communications, which led to the rise of Super PACs and increased influence of money in politics.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Citizens United ruling held that restricting independent expenditures for political communications violated the First Amendment, equating spending with free speech.
2. The case stemmed from Citizens United's desire to air a film critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election cycle.
3. Following this decision, there was a dramatic increase in campaign spending, particularly from corporations and wealthy individuals.
4. The ruling has been criticized for enabling corruption and undermining democracy by giving disproportionate influence to wealthy entities over elections.
5. Citizens United has led to ongoing debates about the role of money in politics and calls for campaign finance reform.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC affect the funding mechanisms for political campaigns?
  • The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC fundamentally altered funding mechanisms for political campaigns by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political communications. This led to the establishment of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unrestricted funds to advocate for or against candidates without direct coordination with their campaigns. As a result, the financial landscape of campaigning shifted dramatically, with increased contributions from large entities influencing election outcomes.
• Evaluate the implications of Citizens United v. FEC on democracy and electoral integrity in the United States.
  • The implications of Citizens United v. FEC on democracy and electoral integrity are significant and contentious. Critics argue that the ruling has led to an imbalance where wealthy individuals and corporations wield excessive power over political processes, drowning out the voices of average voters. This increased monetary influence raises concerns about corruption and questions whether elected officials truly represent their constituents or cater to their largest donors, ultimately threatening the principles of democratic governance.
• Assess the long-term impact of Citizens United v. FEC on future Supreme Court cases regarding campaign finance and free speech.
  • The long-term impact of Citizens United v. FEC on future Supreme Court cases regarding campaign finance and free speech is likely to be profound, as it set a significant precedent that equates financial contributions with free expression. Subsequent cases may build upon this foundation, further expanding or clarifying the role of money in politics and potentially challenging existing campaign finance laws. The ruling has sparked ongoing legal debates and movements advocating for reforms, meaning that its effects will continue to resonate within the judicial system and influence public policy discussions around campaign financing in America.

Related terms

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

First Amendment:

Part of the United States Constitution that protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It is the basis for the Citizens United decision regarding free speech.

Political Action Committee (PAC): An organization that collects and distributes contributions to political campaigns, limited in how much they can contribute directly to candidates but able to create Super PACs after Citizens United.