US Supreme Court Ruling: Citizens United v. FEC

In 2010, the US Supreme Court handed down a significant decision in regards to modern American constitutional law: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This ruling didn't just change law, it changed the way elections are financed, the influence of money in politics, and how we understand the First Amendment in the 21st century.

The Case

At the heart of Citizens United was a political documentary about Hillary Clinton. A conservative not for profit, Citizens United, wanted to air and promote the film during the 2008 presidential primaries. But federal law (specifically the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) prohibited corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on "electioneering communications" close to elections.

Citizens United sued, arguing this law violated its First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court agreed in a 5–4 decision, striking down key provisions of the law and allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds on independent political messaging.

Does the First Amendment Apply to Corporations?

The Court affirmed that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech does extend to non-person entities like corporations and unions. This wasn't entirely new, corporations already enjoyed some constitutional protections, but Citizens United took that logic further, stating that the government cannot limit a corporation's ability to speak politically.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, argued that "the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity".

But Does Free Speech Cover Political Donations?

This is where things get more controversial, and more nuanced. The Court made a distinction between direct contributions to a candidate (which can still be limited) and independent expenditures (which it said cannot). Independent expenditures are political ads or communications made without coordination with a campaign.

While the Court ruled that spending money on such communications is a form of protected political speech, many find this extension problematic. Critics argue that equating money with speech gives wealthy entities, especially corporations and the ultra-rich, outsized influence over public discourse and electoral outcomes.

So while the First Amendment does protect political expression, the idea that it should also protect unlimited financial influence in politics is far more debatable.

Impact on Campaign Finance and Democracy

The consequences and effect on democracy of the Citizens United decision have been profound

US elections, especially presidential races, have become multi-billion-dollar affairs. The 2020 and 2024 election cycles saw record breaking outside spending. Much of this money coming from a handful of mega donors, often to new political action committees (Super PACs), further concentrating political power in the hands of the wealthy.

This risks the voice of average citizens being drowned out and raises the question of whose voice really matters?

Conclusion

Supporters of the decision argue that more speech, even by corporations, is better for democracy. They say that the government should not police who gets to speak or spend on political issues.

However Justice Stevens, in his powerful dissent, warned that the Court had "misguidedly equated corporate political spending with individual free speech," and predicted a system where "the voices of real people are drowned out by moneyed interests.

Citizens United v. FEC didn't just change campaign finance law, it reshaped the foundations of democratic participation in America. While the First Amendment rightly protects freedom of expression, whether it should also shield unlimited political spending remains a pressing constitutional and ethical question.