In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama famously scolded the Supreme Court for their controversial decision in Citizens United v. United States. In response, Justice Alito shook his head “no” back at the President. This rare exchange between these two branches of government illustrates the divisiveness Americans feel about big money in politics and what constitutes protected political speech. Let’s see what was the source of this controversy by looking closely at Citizens United v. FEC.
Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies
Sign up for freeWho won Citizens United v. FEC?
What is the constitutional clause central to Citizens United v. FEC?
Who was the Chief Justice during Citizens United v. FEC?
Who famously criticized the decision in Citizens United v. FEC in his State of the Union Address?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the way private citizens, as well as corporations, spend their money on elections is considered an important part of ______?
Who won Citizens United v. FEC?
What is the constitutional clause central to Citizens United v. FEC?
Who was the Chief Justice during Citizens United v. FEC?
Who famously criticized the decision in Citizens United v. FEC in his State of the Union Address?
The Supreme Court has ruled that the way private citizens, as well as corporations, spend their money on elections is considered an important part of ______?
Achieve better grades quicker with Premium
Geld-zurück-Garantie, wenn du durch die Prüfung fällst
Review generated flashcards
Start learning or create your own AI flashcards
Team Citizens United v FEC Teachers
Citizens United v. FEC was argued in 2009, and a decision was reached in 2010. The case centered on a film that was produced by the non-profit organization, Citizens United. Hillary: The Movie was created in 2008 intending to persuade voters not to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Presidential Election.
Fig. 1, FEC logo, Wikipedia, Public Domain
FEC: Federal Election Commission - an independent executive agency charged with carrying out laws and regulations regarding federal election campaigns.
Billions of dollars are spent on political campaigns each election cycle, both by candidates themselves and by interest groups who advocate for or against candidates. Americans disagree, as they do on many political issues, to what extent the government should regulate political spending on campaigns.
Citizens United v. FEC is a case about how corporations and other groups can spend their own money to advocate for or against a candidate.
To understand the case of Citizens United v. FEC, you have to first understand the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). BCRA is also known as the McCain-Feingold Act after the two senators who sponsored the bill. BCRA was passed in 2002, and it intended to reduce the problem of big money in the election cycle.
Among other things, the BCRA:
Banned soft money to political parties
Soft Money: a political contribution to a political group not specifically designated for a specific candidate
Increased limits on hard money donations to $2,000 for individuals, $5000 for PACs, and $25,000 from parties per election cycle
Hard Money: a political contribution to a specific political candidate
Banned corporations and unions from spending their own money on campaigns. They had to create political action committees (PACs). PACs could then donate to support candidates.
PACS: Political Action Committees. PACs are groups that raise money from individuals and then spend it to advocate for or against political candidates
Prohibited electioneering communications on radio or TV using campaign money within 60 days of the general election
Electioneering Communication: Direct group involvement in creating communication that either aids or hurts political candidates
Required candidates to sign off on political ads with “I’m (name) and I approve this message."
Citizens United is a non-profit conservative organization funded partially by corporate donations. In 2008, the group produced Hillary: the Movie, an unsympathetic portrait of then presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. The movie had the intention of hurting Clinton’s chance for the presidency. BCRA prevented electioneering, and the Federal Election Commission said that Hillary: The Movie was in violation of the law because it intended to influence voters within 30 days of the election.
Citizens United sued the FEC, and a district court upheld the decision made by the FEC, and ruled that Citizens United could not show the movie. Citizens United appealed the decision, and the case appeared before the Supreme Court in 2009.
The question the Court had to decide was whether a law that limits corporations and unions from spending their own money violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Freedom of Speech is vital to our democracy, and spending money on political advertisements is political speech.
The First Amendment applies to individuals and groups equally.
Newspapers are also corporations. If the FEC can limit the speech of corporations, could this also apply to newspapers? What prevents the FEC from regulating all the media?
If movies about political candidates can be banned within 60 days of an election, then books should be banned as well. This amounts to government censorship.
Spending to support a candidate does not mean that corruption is taking place.
The First Amendment does not apply to corporations. The preamble states, “We the People.” It was created to protect individuals.
Corporations have other ways to spend money on elections.
By allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money supporting a candidate, corporations and unions will have power over that candidate.
Even if there is no corruption, the public will see vast sums of money for candidates, and it creates the appearance of corruption. People will lose faith in the electoral process.
The speech of wealthy corporations will drown out the speech of the less wealthy.
The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United. Their decision was that the First Amendment prohibits limitations on political speech by corporations. The justices in the majority said that potential corruption, the government’s rationale for limitations on corporate speech, was not enough to restrict spending money on candidates or campaigns. Spending money on elections and candidates = Free Speech.
The Majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, who wrote
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it has the means to hold officials accountable to the people……For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it.”
He was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented. They argued that the First Amendment protects people, not corporations. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens, said that
The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.”
President Obama famously criticized the ruling in his 2010 State of the Union Address, saying the decision would
Open the floodgates to special interests.”
Fig. 2, Citizens United Money Globe, Wikimedia Commons
The constitutional clause central to Citizens United v. FEC is the First Amendment’s free speech clause. It may not seem like a case about campaign finance has anything to do with freedom of expression, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the way private citizens, as well as corporations, spend their money on elections is considered an important part of political speech.
Citizens United v. FEC is a landmark Supreme Court Case, significant because it ruled that individuals, corporations, and unions could donate unlimited amounts of money to groups that make independent political expenditures. Citizens United changed the culture of campaign finance in the United States by allowing ads by groups immediately before an election, and allowing for unlimited contributions to these groups by individuals and other organizations.
Sign up for free to gain access to all our flashcards.
What is Citizens United v. FEC?
Citizens United v. FEC is a 2010 landmark Supreme Court case about how corporations and other groups can spend their own money to advocate for or against a candidate.
What did Citizens United v. FEC do?
Citizens United changed the culture of campaign finance in the United States by allowing ads by groups immediately before an election, and allowing for unlimited contributions to these groups by individuals and other organizations.
Who won Citizens United v. FEC?
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.
Why is Citizens United v. FEC important?
Citizens United v. FEC is an important Supreme Court decision because it ruled that individuals, corporations, and unions could donate unlimited amounts of money to groups that make independent political expenditures.
How did Citizens United v. FEC affect campaign finance?
Citizens United v. FEC changed the culture of campaign finance in the United States by allowing ads by groups immediately before an election, and allowing for unlimited contributions to these groups by individuals and other organizations.
At StudySmarter, we have created a learning platform that serves millions of students. Meet the people who work hard to deliver fact based content as well as making sure it is verified.
Lily Hulatt is a Digital Content Specialist with over three years of experience in content strategy and curriculum design. She gained her PhD in English Literature from Durham University in 2022, taught in Durham University’s English Studies Department, and has contributed to a number of publications. Lily specialises in English Literature, English Language, History, and Philosophy.
Get to know Lily
Gabriel Freitas is an AI Engineer with a solid experience in software development, machine learning algorithms, and generative AI, including large language models’ (LLMs) applications. Graduated in Electrical Engineering at the University of São Paulo, he is currently pursuing an MSc in Computer Engineering at the University of Campinas, specializing in machine learning topics. Gabriel has a strong background in software engineering and has worked on projects involving computer vision, embedded AI, and LLM applications.
Get to know Gabriel