Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the [First Amendment](/library/first-amendment) bars the government from restricting independent political spending by corporations, unions, and other associations. It reshaped American campaign finance.

In 2008, a conservative nonprofit called Citizens United produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton and wanted to distribute it through video-on-demand during the Democratic primaries. Federal law at the time barred corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to pay for "electioneering communications" close to an election. Citizens United sued, and the case reached the Supreme Court. The Court ruled 5-4 in January 2010 that the restriction violated the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that political speech does not lose constitutional protection simply because its source is a corporation or union, and that independent expenditures, those made without coordination with a campaign, cannot give rise to corruption or its appearance. The Court upheld disclosure requirements but struck down the spending limits. The decision did not change limits on direct contributions to candidates, which remain capped. What it did unleash was independent political spending. Within months, federal courts and the FEC interpreted Citizens United to permit the formation of "super PACs," which can raise and spend unlimited sums from corporations, unions, and individuals so long as they do not coordinate with campaigns. Spending by outside groups exploded in the elections that followed. Defenders of the decision argue that political speech is at the core of the First Amendment and that the government has no business policing the funding behind it. Critics argue that the decision opened a flood of largely untraceable money into American politics. Both views accept the decision as the most consequential campaign finance ruling in modern American history.