Citizens United v. FEC
The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission changed campaign finance law in the United States by ruling that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to make unlimited independent political expenditures.
The Case
Citizens United, a non-profit organization, sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary. Citizens United filed suit in federal court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the McCain-Feingold Act’s restrictions on corporate-funded electioneering communications.
The Ruling
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that:
- Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment
- The government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and unions
- Disclosure requirements for political spending remain constitutional
Impact on Political Organizing
The decision led to:
- The related D.C. Circuit ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010) enabled the creation of Super PACs (independent expenditure committees)
- Increase in outside spending in elections
- Rise of “dark money” groups using 501(c)(4) structures
- New forms of digital political advertising and organizing
Digital Politics Implications
- Enabled corporate funding of online political campaigns
- Contributed to growth of digital political advertising industry
- Enabled increased corporate and union spending on online political campaigns
- Raised questions about transparency in digital political spending