Citizens United VS. FEC

Supreme Court Ruling

Majority Opinion

Minority Opinion

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions. This meant that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures.

The dissent argued that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He wrote: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."

FEC Argument

Initial Reaction

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has often been credited for the creation of "super PACs", political action committees which make no contributions to candidates or parties and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions. In the 2012 election Super Pacs spent, $567,498,628.

As amended by § 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on "electronic communications" or speech advocating for or against a political candidate. Citizens United sought an injunction against the FEC declaring that it was unconstitutional. The district court denied this motion and Citizens United appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Facts

Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

Citizens United Argument

Summary

In January 2008, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a 90 minute documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie (hereinafter Hillary). The movie expressed opinions about whether then-senator Hillary Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, was fit for the presidency. Citizens United distributed the movie in theaters and on DVD, but also wanted to make it available through video-on-demand. It produced advertisements promoting the film and wanted to show them on broadcast and cable television. To pay for the video-on-demand distribution and the advertisements, Citizens United planned to use its general treasury funds.

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United likely calls into question laws in 24 states, including Connecticut. According to the Center for Competitive Politics, an organization tracking First Amendment issues, state responses thus far have varied. Most States have introduced bills that repeal the expenditure ban.

Citizens United vs. FEC