Citizens United v. FEC

Definition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2010 that ruled that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts cannot be limited under the First Amendment. This case significantly changed the landscape of campaign finance by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advocacy, thus equating money with free speech.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Citizens United v. FEC decision overturned previous restrictions on corporate spending in elections, arguing that such limits violated free speech rights.
2. The ruling led to the creation of Super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and organizations but cannot coordinate directly with candidates.
3. The decision sparked significant debate about the influence of money in politics and its implications for democratic governance.
4. Following the ruling, campaign spending increased dramatically in federal elections, with millions of dollars being funneled into various races by Super PACs and other organizations.
5. Critics argue that the decision undermines the principle of equal representation by allowing wealthier entities to have a disproportionate impact on elections and political discourse.

Review Questions

• What were the main arguments presented in Citizens United v. FEC regarding free speech and campaign finance?
  • In Citizens United v. FEC, the main argument was centered around the interpretation of free speech under the First Amendment. Citizens United contended that limiting corporate spending on political advocacy was an infringement on their right to free speech. The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, ruling that corporations and unions could not be restricted from spending money to influence elections, thereby equating monetary contributions with free expression.
• Discuss how Citizens United v. FEC impacted the role of Super PACs in American elections.
  • The ruling in Citizens United v. FEC directly led to the rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independently from candidates. This has transformed American election dynamics, as these organizations can significantly influence election outcomes through massive advertising campaigns and strategic political messaging without coordinating with any candidates or parties. Consequently, Super PACs have become pivotal players in shaping electoral contests.
• Evaluate the long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC on American democracy and electoral integrity.
  • The long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC on American democracy are profound and multifaceted. Critics argue that the ruling has exacerbated income inequality in political influence, allowing wealthy corporations and individuals to dominate political discourse and elections. This raises concerns about electoral integrity, as substantial financial contributions can overshadow grassroots movements and limit diverse representation within the political arena. The ongoing debates about campaign finance reform and its relationship with democratic principles continue to reflect the contentious nature of this landmark case.

Related terms

First Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It is the cornerstone of American democratic principles.

Political Action Committee (PAC): A Political Action Committee is an organization that raises money privately to influence elections or legislation, particularly at the federal level.

Super PAC: A Super PAC is a type of independent political action committee that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates.