Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC)

The Central Constitutional Issue

The central constitutional issue in Citizens United v. FEC was the application of the First Amendment's free speech protections to corporate and union spending in elections. The Supreme Court had to consider whether the BCRA's limitations on independent political expenditures by these entities infringed upon the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The case presented critical questions about the definition of political speech and the government's role in regulating the political expression of organizations and individuals, especially within the context of campaign finance.

Arguments Presented to the Supreme Court

The arguments in Citizens United v. FEC reflected a stark division of opinion. Proponents for Citizens United argued that political spending by corporations constituted a form of protected political expression under the First Amendment, and that limiting this spending was tantamount to censorship. They suggested that such restrictions could potentially extend to other forms of media. Conversely, the FEC and its allies contended that the First Amendment was designed to protect the speech of individuals, not corporations, and that unchecked corporate spending could lead to corruption or its appearance, eroding public trust in the electoral process and overshadowing the voices of individual citizens.

The Supreme Court's Decision and Its Implications

The Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United, overturning the BCRA's constraints on independent expenditures by corporations and unions. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that the government's interest in preventing corruption did not justify the suppression of political speech. The ruling effectively recognized the expenditure of money in elections as a form of free speech, thus permitting unlimited donations to independent political groups by individuals, corporations, and unions. The dissent, led by Justice Stevens, argued that the First Amendment was intended to protect the rights of individuals, not corporations, and voiced concerns that the decision could undermine the integrity of democratic institutions.

The Aftermath of Citizens United v. FEC

The Citizens United v. FEC decision has significantly altered the campaign finance landscape in the United States. It has facilitated the emergence of political action committees (PACs) and the creation of "Super PACs," which can amass and expend substantial sums in support or opposition to political candidates. The ruling has reignited debates about the role of money in politics, the influence of special interests, and the need to balance free speech with the demand for transparency and equity in elections. Citizens United v. FEC remains a contentious and pivotal issue in ongoing discussions about the interplay between free speech, campaign finance, and the principles of democratic governance.