Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Issue

Does a law that limits the ability of corporations and labor unions to spend their own money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech?

Law and Supreme Court Precedents

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) A state law in Michigan said that for-profit and non-profit corporations could not use their money to run ads that support or oppose candidates in state elections. The Supreme Court decided that the Michigan law was constitutional The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BRCA) of 2002 (Also known as the McCain-Feingold Act) Among other things, this federal law banned any corporation (for-profit or non-profit) or union from paying for "electioneering communications." It defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that named a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC (2007) The BCRA banned corporations and unions from paying broadcast advertisements that named specific candidates for office near election time

Arguments for Citizens United

Freedom of political speech is vital to our democracy and spending money on political advertisements is one way of spreading speech. The First Amendment applies equally to speech by individuals and speech by groups. Companies, unions, and other organizations should not face stricter rules about their speech than individuals do. Newspapers are corporations. Through editorials, news organizations and media companies try to influence elections. If Congress is allowed to ban corporations from placing political ads, what prevents them from regulating the media as well? Though some people or organizations have more money and can therefore speak more, the First Amendment does not allow for making some forms of speech illegal in order to make things "fair."

Arguments for the Federal Election

The First Amendment does not apply to corporations because the Constitution was established for "We the People" and was set up to protect individual, rather than corporate, liberties. The BCRA leaves corporations other ways to speak and to spend money on elections. The law allows corporations and unions to form Political Action Committees and to fund advertisements through the PAC. The Supreme Court has ruled on these issues before in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and in McConnell v. FEC, which upheld the BCRA's bans. The Court should not completely change the law, which has clear public support. Corruption is not limited to bribes and direct transactions. By being allowed to spend unlimited sums of money in support of a candidate, corporations and unions will have a certain amount of access to, if not power over, that candidate. Corporations can accumulate so much money that they could overwhelm the conversation and drown out the speech of less wealthy individuals in an election.

Background

Americans disagree about the extent to which fundraising and spending on election campaigns should be limited by law. This case, however, is not about direct donations to candidates. Instead, this case is about how and when companies and other organizations can spend their own money to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.

Facts of the case

Because of a special provision in the BCRA, Citizens United was allowed to appeal the decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which the organization did. Citizens United asked the Court to decide whether a feature-length film really fell under the rules of the BCRA and whether the law violated the organization's First Amendment rights to engage in political speech.

Dissent Opinion

First Amendment protects people, not corporations. The dissenters felt that the government should be allowed to ban corporate money because it could overwhelm the debate and drown out non-corporate voices. They noted that Congress had imposed special rules on corporate campaign spending for more than 100 years.

Decision

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Justice Stevens dissented and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

Majority Opinion

The Court ruled, 5-4, that the First Amendment prohibits limits on corporate funding of independent broadcasts in candidate elections. The justices said that the government's rationale for the limits on corporate spending—to prevent corruption—was not persuasive enough to restrict political speech. A desire to prevent corruption can justify limits on donations to candidates, but not on independent expenditures (spending that is not coordinated with a candidate's campaign) to support or oppose candidates for elected office. Moreover, the Court said, corporations have free speech rights and their political speech cannot be restricted any more than that of individuals.