19/10/22, 22:10 Citizens United v.

Federal Election Commission (2010) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

LII
> Wex
> Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is the 2010 Supreme
Court case that held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the
government from limiting independent expenditures on political campaigns by groups
such as corporations or labor unions. (Read the opinion here; find oral
arguments here).

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act)

prohibited corporations and unions from using their general funds to make
independent expenditures for speech defined as “electioneering communication.”
An electioneering communication is defined as “any broadcast, cable, or
satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal
office” and is made with 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a
primary election. In addition, BCRA required televised electioneering communications
funded by anyone other than a candidate to include a disclaimer. Furthermore, any
person who spends more than $10,000 on electioneering communications must file a
disclosure statement with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). (Read LII’s
Overview of BCRA here).

Previously, the Court in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) upheld a

state prohibition of an independent corporate expenditure in support of a candidate
for state office. The Court in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) held
that the “electioneering communication” prohibition in BCRA was facially
constitutional “insofar as it restricted speech that was the functional equivalent of
express advocacy.”

Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, desired to air and advertise Hillary: The

Movie, a film critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, ahead of the 2008 Democratic
primary elections. In December 2007, Citizens United
sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the FEC because Citizens United

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_election_commission_(2010) 1/5
19/10/22, 22:10 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

feared that, under Austin and McConnell, BCRA would prevent the airing and

advertising of Hillary. The District Court denied Citizens United’s motion for
a preliminary injunction.

The Court began its opinion, delivered by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief

Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Breyer, by considering whether
BRCA is applicable in this case. Citizens United contended that the film does not
qualify as an “electioneering communication,” and thus BRCA does not apply. The
Court rejected Citizens United’s argument by finding that Hillary is an appeal to vote
against Clinton and qualifies as “the functional equivalent of express advocacy.”
Therefore, under the test in McConnell, BCRA prohibits Citizens United from airing or
advertising the film, Hillary.

After deciding that BCRA applies, the Court considered whether the provisions in
BCRA that prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds
to make independent expenditures for “electioneering communication” is facially
constitutional under the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
(Compare: unconstitutional).

The free speech clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no
law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The Constitution requires that laws that
burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government
to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to
achieve that interest” (see Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.).

After holding that BCRA’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditure burdens

political speech, the Court turned to whether the prohibition “furthers a compelling
interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” The Court first
looked at Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978).
These two cases recognized only “the prevention of [quid pro quo] corruption and the
appearance of corruption” as a compelling governmental interest. In addition, these
two cases prohibited the Government from restricting political speech based on the
speaker’s corporate identity.

In Austin, however, the Court found that an anti-distortion interest as another

compelling governmental interest in limiting political speech. It held that the
Government had a compelling interest in preventing the “distortion effects of
immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate
form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s
political ideas.” In addition, Austin permitted restrictions based on the speaker’s
corporate identity.

To address the conflicting lines of precedent, the Court turned to the purpose of
political speech. The Court held that political speech is “indispensable to decision-
making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_election_commission_(2010) 2/5
19/10/22, 22:10 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

corporation rather than an individual.” In addition, the Court relied on the reasoning
in Buckley, which rejected the premise that the Government has an interest in
equalizing relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of
elections. The Court concluded that Austin’s anti-distortion rationale interfered with
the “open marketplace” of ideas protected by the First Amendment. The Court
overturned Austin and part of McConnell which held that prohibition on corporate
independent expenditure is constitutional.

The Court then addressed the constitutionality of the disclaimer and disclosure

provisions in BRCA. Although the disclaimer and disclosure provisions may burden the
ability to speak, the Court found that they do not impose a ceiling on campaign-
related activities and do not prevent anyone from speaking.

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, dissented by

arguing that the Court’s ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected
institutions.” Justice Stevens contends that the majority should not limit corruption as
strictly quid pro quo exchanges.

The outcome of this case was highly controversial. President Obama, during the 2010
State of the Union Address, stated that the holding in Citizens United would “open the
floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit
in our elections” while the American Civil Liberties Union has supported the Court’s
ruling in this case. Some scholars have attributed the creation of “Super PACS” to this
ruling.

See also First Amendment: Political Speech and Campaign Finance.

Related cases:

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

[Last updated in July of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

wex
CIVICS
the Constitution
government
THE LEGAL PROCESS
courts
statutory interpretation
constitutional law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_election_commission_(2010) 3/5
19/10/22, 22:10 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

courts and procedure

legal education and practice
wex articles
wex definitions

 Wex Toolbox

Easily find the perfect domain

name that represents your

brand or business.
godaddy.com

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_election_commission_(2010) 4/5
19/10/22, 22:10 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

ACCESSIBILITY

ABOUT LII

CONTACT US

ADVERTISE HERE

HELP

TERMS OF USE

PRIVACY

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/citizens_united_v._federal_election_commission_(2010) 5/5