Citizens United v. FEC

Definition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2010 that ruled the government cannot limit independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations and unions, viewing such expenditures as a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment. This decision significantly reshaped campaign finance laws and led to the rise of Super PACs and the proliferation of dark money in politics.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned previous laws that restricted corporate spending in elections, effectively allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political advocacy.
2. This case arose from a dispute over whether Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton close to the 2008 election, which led to questions about the legality of corporate-funded electioneering.
3. The Supreme Court's decision resulted in the creation of Super PACs, which became a new vehicle for raising and spending large sums of money on political campaigns without direct coordination with candidates.
4. Following this decision, dark money organizations proliferated, as many groups began to engage in political spending without disclosing their donors, significantly impacting transparency in campaign finance.
5. Critics argue that Citizens United has led to increased influence of wealthy individuals and corporations in politics, undermining democratic processes and leading to greater inequalities in political power.

Review Questions

• How did the Citizens United v. FEC decision impact campaign finance laws in the United States?
  • The Citizens United v. FEC decision fundamentally altered campaign finance laws by declaring that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals regarding political spending. As a result, it struck down restrictions on independent expenditures, leading to a surge in outside spending through Super PACs. This change has allowed for unprecedented amounts of money to flow into elections, raising concerns about the influence of wealth on political outcomes.
• Discuss the relationship between Citizens United v. FEC and the emergence of Super PACs and dark money in modern elections.
  • Citizens United v. FEC is closely linked to the emergence of Super PACs and dark money in elections because it paved the way for these entities to operate without limits on spending. Super PACs can raise unlimited funds from individuals and corporations but must operate independently from candidate campaigns. Dark money organizations, which do not disclose their donors, have also increased significantly since the ruling, contributing to a more opaque financial landscape in political campaigning.
• Evaluate the long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC on American democracy and political equality.
  • The long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC on American democracy are profound and controversial. By allowing unlimited corporate spending on elections, it has arguably shifted power away from average voters toward wealthy corporations and individuals who can afford to influence campaigns significantly. This shift raises critical questions about political equality and whether democracy can truly represent all citizens when financial resources become a deciding factor in electoral success and policy influence.

Related terms

Super PACs:

Political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions to advocate for or against political candidates, as long as they do not coordinate directly with the candidates' campaigns.

Dark Money: Political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors, allowing substantial amounts of money to influence elections without transparency about the sources of funding.

First Amendment: An amendment to the United States Constitution that protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition, including the right to free speech in political contexts.