Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
2010 — Corporate Political Speech and Campaign Finance
Constitutional Clause
First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) — Political Speech / Campaign Finance
Do the BCRA's restrictions on corporate/union political expenditures unconstitutionally burden First Amendment political speech? If so, do corporations, unions, and interest groups have the same speech rights as individuals?
Memory Tricks
"Citizens United = Corporations = People (for Speech)" — The Court held that corporations, unions, and interest groups have the same First Amendment political speech rights as individuals. Money spent on political speech = protected speech.
"BCRA = Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act = McCain-Feingold" — The BCRA tried to limit soft money and corporate/union electioneering. Citizens United effectively gutted the limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and groups.
"Independent Expenditure ≠ Contribution" — Citizens United protects INDEPENDENT spending (Super PACs, ads not coordinated with campaigns), NOT direct contributions to candidates, which Congress can still limit.
Facts of the Case
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 limited corporations and unions from funding electioneering communications. The Federal Election Commission used the BCRA to stop Citizens United — a conservative group — from airing a negative movie attacking presidential candidate Hillary Clinton close to the 2008 primary. Citizens United challenged the FEC's action as a violation of free speech.
Holding / Decision
Vote: 5-4 (Roberts Court)
The Roberts Court ruled 5-4 for Citizens United. Political speech is protected under the First Amendment regardless of whether the speaker is an individual, corporation, union, or interest group. Independent political expenditures (not direct contributions to candidates) are protected speech — money spent to communicate political ideas cannot be limited based on the corporate identity of the speaker.
Key Principle
"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."
Paired Case
McCutcheon v. FEC, 2014
The BCRA also included aggregate limits on the total amount individuals could give to all candidates, parties, and groups in one election cycle. McCutcheon struck down these aggregate caps, extending Citizens United's reasoning. Combined, the two cases eliminated most limits on independent political expenditures while individual contribution limits to specific candidates remain.
AP Exam Connections
Foundational Doc
Federalist No. 10 (+)
Citizens United could be seen as protecting factions — the very thing Madison feared but accepted as inevitable
Unit 1
Popular sovereignty
Critics argue unlimited corporate spending corrupts popular sovereignty by giving wealthy interests outsized influence
Unit 6
Super PACs and campaign finance
Citizens United created the legal foundation for Super PACs — independent expenditure committees
Unit 2
Goals of interest groups
Citizens United dramatically expanded the political power of interest groups and corporations
Writing Practice
AP-Style FRQ Prompt
In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects independent political expenditures by corporations and other groups. Evaluate whether this ruling strengthens or weakens democratic participation.
Tip: This is a controversial case — the AP exam expects you to explain both sides fairly. Use Federalist 10 as a connection (factions and interest groups) and popular sovereignty as a counterweight. Avoid simply agreeing or disagreeing — analyze the constitutional tension.
Key Takeaways
- Corporations and groups have 1st Amendment political speech rights equal to individuals
- Independent political expenditures (Super PACs) cannot be limited by Congress
- Applies to independent spending — direct candidate contributions can still be regulated
- Created the legal foundation for Super PACs in American politics