Citizens United v. FEC

Definition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2010 that ruled that the government cannot restrict independent expenditures for political communications by corporations and unions. This decision significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance, allowing for increased influence of money in politics and raising questions about the transparency and integrity of political donations.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The ruling in Citizens United v. FEC held that spending money to influence elections is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.
2. The decision led to a dramatic increase in the amount of money spent on elections by outside groups, notably through Super PACs.
3. Critics argue that Citizens United has contributed to the corruption of democracy by allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to have disproportionate influence over elections.
4. Supporters claim that the ruling protects free speech and allows for more voices in political discourse.
5. Following this case, several states have proposed amendments to limit the effects of Citizens United, reflecting ongoing debates about campaign finance laws.

Review Questions

• How did the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC change the landscape of campaign finance in the United States?
  • The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC fundamentally changed campaign finance by establishing that corporations and unions could spend unlimited funds on independent political expenditures. This decision paved the way for the rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts without direct coordination with candidates. As a result, this increased financial influence has reshaped election dynamics, making it possible for outside groups to dominate advertising and messaging during campaigns.
• Discuss the implications of Citizens United v. FEC on political transparency and accountability.
  • The implications of Citizens United v. FEC on political transparency are significant, as the ruling allowed for increased spending without clear disclosure requirements for donors. This lack of transparency can make it difficult for voters to understand who is financing political campaigns and how this may affect candidates' actions if elected. Critics argue that this can lead to a perception of corruption in politics, as undisclosed funding sources may seek favorable policies or legislation in return for their financial support.
• Evaluate the arguments for and against the Citizens United v. FEC ruling in terms of its impact on democracy and electoral fairness.
  • Arguments against the Citizens United v. FEC ruling suggest it undermines democracy by enabling wealthy individuals and corporations to wield excessive influence over elections, effectively drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. Critics contend that this leads to an imbalance in political power, where policy decisions favor those with financial resources. Conversely, supporters argue that the ruling enhances democracy by allowing more robust participation in political discourse and protecting free speech rights. They claim it empowers groups to advocate for their interests without fear of government restrictions, asserting that this ultimately benefits voters by providing more information about issues and candidates.

Related terms

Super PACs: Political action committees that can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions to spend on independent political advertising, but cannot directly coordinate with candidates or parties.

Political Action Committee (PAC): A type of organization that collects contributions from members to support candidates, parties, or legislation, operating under specific legal limits on contributions and spending.

Campaign Finance Reform: Legislation aimed at regulating the amount of money spent on political campaigns to ensure fair elections and reduce the influence of money in politics.