Citizens United v. FEC

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 significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political advertising, thus enhancing their influence in the electoral process.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Citizens United decision effectively overturned previous laws that restricted corporate spending in elections, based on the argument that such restrictions violated free speech rights.
2. As a result of this ruling, there was a significant increase in the amount of money spent in elections, leading to concerns about the potential for corruption and undue influence on elected officials.
3. The case arose from a dispute over a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, which was considered by the FEC to be a violation of campaign finance laws.
4. The ruling has contributed to the rise of Super PACs, which can operate independently from candidate campaigns but still heavily influence election outcomes through their spending.
5. Critics argue that Citizens United has led to an imbalance in political power, favoring wealthy corporations and individuals while diminishing the voice of average voters.

Review Questions

• How did the Citizens United v. FEC decision change the role of money in political campaigns?
  • The Citizens United v. FEC decision fundamentally changed the role of money in political campaigns by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds on independent political advertising. This shift led to an explosion in campaign spending, particularly with the formation of Super PACs, which emerged as major players in elections. As a result, candidates increasingly relied on large donations from wealthy entities rather than grassroots contributions from average voters.
• Evaluate the impact of Citizens United v. FEC on the regulatory framework governing campaign finance.
  • The impact of Citizens United v. FEC on campaign finance regulation has been profound and contentious. The ruling effectively dismantled previous restrictions on corporate spending, arguing that such limitations infringe upon free speech rights. This has led to calls for comprehensive campaign finance reform and increased transparency measures, as critics argue that unchecked spending poses risks of corruption and distorts the democratic process.
• Discuss the long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC for democracy in the United States and how it might shape future electoral politics.
  • The long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC for democracy in the United States are significant, as it has shifted power dynamics within electoral politics. With unlimited spending now permissible for corporations and Super PACs, there is concern about a growing disparity between those who can afford to influence elections and ordinary voters. This shift could lead to policy decisions that favor corporate interests over public good, as well as increased polarization and disenchantment among citizens who feel their voices are drowned out by moneyed interests.

Related terms

Super PACs: Super PACs are independent political committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and individuals, often formed to support or oppose political candidates.

Political Action Committees (PACs): PACs are organizations that collect and distribute funds to candidates for political office, typically limited in how much they can contribute directly to campaigns but allowed to raise money from multiple sources.

First Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It is often cited in discussions about free speech and campaign finance.