Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
The decision reshaped campaign finance and political spending through outside groups.
Can the government restrict independent political spending by corporations and unions?
Citizens United v. FEC began with a dispute over whether a nonprofit corporation could distribute and advertise a film critical of a presidential candidate close to an election. Federal law limited certain corporate and union electioneering communications.
The Supreme Court held that the government may not suppress independent political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. The decision allowed corporations and unions to spend independently on election advocacy, while leaving direct contribution limits in place.
The ruling transformed campaign finance. It helped create the modern super PAC era, intensified debates over money and speech, and remains one of the Court’s most contested First Amendment election cases.
Facts
A nonprofit corporation challenged restrictions on election-related independent expenditures.
Ruling
The Court held that independent political expenditures are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Why It Matters
The decision reshaped campaign finance and political spending through outside groups.
Related Ideas