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 political expenditures by corporations and unions under the First Amendment. This decision significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance, leading to increased spending in elections and raising questions about the influence of money on politics and democracy.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The ruling in Citizens United v. FEC determined that independent expenditures are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.
2. Before this decision, corporations and unions faced restrictions on their ability to spend money on political campaigns, which were lifted following this ruling.
3. The case originated from a dispute over whether a film produced by Citizens United could be banned during an election cycle.
4. The Supreme Court's decision has led to a significant increase in the amount of money spent on political campaigns, with many attributing this to the rise of Super PACs.
5. Critics argue that Citizens United has allowed wealthy individuals and entities to have disproportionate influence over elections and policymaking.

Review Questions

• How did the Citizens United v. FEC decision reshape campaign finance laws in the United States?
  • The Citizens United v. FEC decision reshaped campaign finance laws by removing restrictions on independent political expenditures made by corporations and unions. This ruling established that such expenditures are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment, leading to a dramatic increase in financial contributions to political campaigns. As a result, this decision allowed entities like corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy, fundamentally changing how elections are financed.
• In what ways has Citizens United v. FEC impacted the role of Super PACs in American elections?
  • Citizens United v. FEC has significantly impacted the role of Super PACs by enabling them to raise and spend unlimited funds for independent expenditures in support of or opposition to candidates. Following this ruling, Super PACs became prominent players in elections, often funded by wealthy individuals and organizations seeking to influence political outcomes. This development raised concerns about transparency and accountability in campaign financing, as Super PACs are not required to disclose their donors.
• Evaluate the long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC on American democracy and political representation.
  • The long-term implications of Citizens United v. FEC on American democracy and political representation are profound and multifaceted. Critics argue that the ruling has exacerbated income inequality in political influence, as wealthier individuals and corporations can now dominate the funding of campaigns and sway public policy decisions. This shift may undermine democratic principles by marginalizing the voices of average voters, creating an environment where elected officials prioritize the interests of their financial backers over those of their constituents. As such, Citizens United raises important questions about the health of American democracy and the integrity of its electoral processes.

Related terms

First Amendment: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

Super PACs: Political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and individuals to influence elections, often as a result of the Citizens United ruling.

Campaign Finance Reform: Efforts to change the rules governing how money is raised and spent in political campaigns, often aiming to reduce the influence of money on politics.