Citizens United v. FEC (2010) — Mr. Rogers AP Gov

Unit 5

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

558 U.S. 310 · January 21, 2010 · Justice Anthony Kennedy

📋

BACKGROUND

Citizens United was a conservative nonprofit organization that produced a 90-minute documentary called "Hillary: The Movie" — a highly critical film about Hillary Clinton released during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Federal law under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, 2002) prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" — broadcast ads that mention a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Citizens United wanted to run ads promoting the film and make it available on demand during the primary. The FEC said this violated BCRA.

What began as a narrow case about a documentary became one of the most sweeping First Amendment decisions in history — the Court reached beyond the specific facts to reconsider decades of campaign finance law.

❓

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

Does the First Amendment prohibit Congress from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, and labor unions — even when those expenditures are made close to an election?

⚖️

THE RULING

✓ Corporations have 1st Amendment speech rights — 5 to 4

Majority: Kennedy · Roberts · Scalia · Alito · Thomas | Dissent: Stevens · Ginsburg · Breyer · Sotomayor

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

The Court overruled two prior decisions (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC) and held that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. Political speech does not lose constitutional protection just because its source is a corporation rather than an individual. The anti-distortion rationale — that corporations have too much money and could drown out individual voices — was rejected as an illegitimate basis for censorship. Notably, the ruling did NOT eliminate: disclosure requirements (companies must still report spending), direct campaign contribution limits (corporations still can't give directly to candidates), or the ban on foreign spending.

📐

RULE ESTABLISHED

Independent Expenditures Are Protected Speech

Corporations, unions, and associations have First Amendment rights to make unlimited independent expenditures in political campaigns — spending that is not coordinated with a candidate or campaign. The government cannot restrict this spending based on the speaker's corporate identity. However: (1) direct contributions to candidates remain limited, (2) coordination with campaigns is prohibited, (3) disclosure requirements remain constitutional, and (4) foreign corporations and nationals are still prohibited from spending. This decision led directly to the creation of Super PACs — organizations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts on independent political advertising.

⚡

THE DISSENT — JUSTICE STEVENS

Justice Stevens (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor) — 90-page dissent

Stevens's dissent was nearly as long as the majority opinion. He argued that corporations are not people — they don't vote, they can't be drafted, they can't go to jail. The First Amendment was designed to protect human self-expression and democratic participation, not to give financial entities unlimited power to flood elections with money. The majority's holding would allow corporations to spend massive sums to elect or defeat candidates, creating a real risk of actual or apparent corruption that undermines democratic legitimacy. "The Court's opinion is a rejection of the common sense of the American people." He accused the majority of judicial activism — deciding questions far broader than the case required.

🔗

LEGACY & REAL-WORLD IMPACT

Super PACs
CreatedWithin months, the D.C. Circuit Court (in SpeechNow.org v. FEC) used Citizens United to strike down limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees — creating Super PACs. Super PACs can raise unlimited money from corporations, unions, and individuals and spend it independently on political advertising.
Outside Spending
ExplosionOutside spending in federal elections grew from ~$338 million in 2008 to over $1.6 billion in 2012 and has continued rising. The 2024 presidential election saw record outside spending exceeding $2 billion. Critics argue this gives wealthy donors and corporations disproportionate influence; supporters argue it's protected speech.
Disclosure
SurvivedCitizens United explicitly upheld disclosure requirements as constitutional. But "dark money" nonprofits (501c4s) that don't disclose donors have become a major vehicle for anonymous political spending — operating in a legal gray zone that Citizens United didn't directly address.
Public OpinionCitizens United is one of the most unpopular Supreme Court decisions in modern history — polling consistently shows 70-80% of Americans across party lines oppose it. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass legislation requiring disclosure of dark money donors.

EXAM FOCUS

Citizens United is the most politically charged case in Unit 5. Know three things cold: (1) it protects independent expenditures, not direct contributions, (2) it led to Super PACs, and (3) disclosure requirements were upheld. FRQ scenarios often involve a Super PAC spending money near an election — apply Citizens United and distinguish from coordination with the campaign, which is still illegal.

Quick Facts

Vote5 to 4

Provision1st Amendment · Free Speech

What It Allows vs. Doesn't

✓ AllowedUnlimited independent spending by corporations, unions, associations

✓ AllowedSuper PACs raising unlimited money

✗ Still BannedDirect contributions to candidates (still limited)

✗ Still BannedCoordination between Super PACs and campaigns

✗ Still BannedForeign corporate spending

Common Mistakes

✗Saying Citizens United allows unlimited direct contributions — only independent expenditures are unlimited.

✗Saying Super PACs can coordinate with campaigns — coordination makes the spending a contribution, which has limits.

✗Forgetting that disclosure requirements survived — Citizens United upheld them explicitly.