Citzens United v. Federal Election Commission was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2010. The court ruled that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits restrictions on the ability of corporations to spend money on their own campaign advertisements.
Background.
In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, legislatures began passing measures to regulate election campaign contributions and campaign spending. Supporters of such measures hoped that the regulations would curb political corruption. They also hoped the measures would prevent certain wealthy individuals from drowning out others’ campaign speech.
The Supreme Court addressed government regulation of campaign spending in the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo. In that decision, the court allowed federal limits on individuals’ campaign contributions to specific candidates. However, the court also held that the First Amendment prohibited federal limits on individuals’ independent expenditures in political campaigns, as long as the contributions were not given to or coordinated with any candidate. Individuals were thus able to buy their own political advertisements endorsing or opposing certain candidates.
In the years since the Buckley ruling, other provisions of federal law regulated the campaign activities of corporations.
Citizens United.
The Citizens United case stemmed from the campaign activities of Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation dedicated to conservative political causes.
The law at issue in the case was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. The BCRA prohibited corporations from buying their own campaign advertisements or making certain independent expenditures to endorse or oppose a candidate during the two-month period before a general election. The restrictions also applied during the one-month period before a primary election.
In 2008, Citizens United produced a documentary critical of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton was at that time a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United sought a preliminary injunction (temporary order) to prevent the Federal Election Commission from enforcing BCRA provisions that might limit the broadcasting of the documentary. After a district court denied the injunction, Citizens United appealed the ruling. The case came before the Supreme Court in March 2009.
On Jan. 21, 2010, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that parts of the BCRA violated the First Amendment. Because Citizens United’s expenditures were not given to or coordinated with specific candidates, the court concluded that they did not raise serious concerns about possible political corruption, and thus the First Amendment did not permit their regulation.
By an 8-1 vote in the same case, the Supreme Court upheld certain campaign disclosure laws. Such laws require political advertisements to identify the people or organizations responsible for their content.
