Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2008)
- Docket
- 08-205
- Decided
- 2008-01-01
- Category
- General
- Public Good score
- 30 / 100
- Framers' Intent score
- 40 / 100
Summary
Question: 1) Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell resolve all constitutional as-applied challenges to the BCRA when it upheld the disclosure requirements of the statute as constitutional? 2) Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden when applied to electioneering requirements because they are protected "political speech" and not subject to regulation as "campaign speech"? 3) If a communication lacks a clear plea to vote for or against a particular candidate, is it subject to regulation under the BCRA? 4) Should a feature length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA? Conclusion: No. No. Yes. Yes. The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC . (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions. In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.
Case Brief
Facts
Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced and sought to distribute "Hillary: The Movie," a feature-length film critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, shortly before the 2008 presidential primaries. It planned to make the film available through video-on-demand and to air related advertisements. The Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" and for independent expenditures expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Citizens United argued these restrictions, as applied to its film and ads, violated the First Amendment.
Procedural History
Citizens United filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the FEC’s enforcement of BCRA provisions. The three-judge district court granted summary judgment to the FEC, holding the film could be regulated under BCRA and that relevant precedent sustained the statute. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction, ordered reargument, and decided the case on the merits, reaching broader constitutional questions regarding corporate independent expenditures.
Issue
Does the First Amendment prohibit the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations and unions, including restrictions on electioneering communications under BCRA?
Holding
Yes. The First Amendment bars restrictions on independent expenditures and electioneering communications funded by corporations’ and unions’ general treasury funds, though disclosure and disclaimer requirements may generally be upheld.
Rule
Political speech is indispensable to a democracy and does not lose First Amendment protection because its source is a corporation (or union). The government may not suppress independent political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity, and it may not limit independent expenditures to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption absent a sufficiently direct quid pro quo concern. Disclosure and disclaimer requirements are subject to “exacting scrutiny” and may be sustained when they bear a substantial relation to sufficiently important governmental interests such as informing the electorate.
Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the First Amendment protects speech, not speakers, and that categorical bans on corporate independent expenditures amount to censorship of core political expression. It rejected the argument that independent expenditures pose the same corruption risks as direct contributions, limiting the relevant anticorruption interest largely to quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. The Court concluded that prior cases upholding such restrictions (notably Austin) were inconsistent with First Amendment principles and should be overruled, and that the McConnell decision should be overruled to the extent it sustained BCRA’s prohibition on corporate-funded electioneering communications. At the same time, the Court upheld BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer provisions, finding they advance informational interests and promote transparency without banning speech.
Significance
Citizens United is a landmark First Amendment campaign-finance decision that invalidated federal prohibitions on corporate and union independent expenditures and electioneering communications, reshaping the regulation of money in politics. The decision paved the way for the rise of Super PACs and expanded the constitutional protection afforded to independent political spending while generally sustaining robust disclosure regimes. It remains central to modern debates over democratic accountability, corruption, and the constitutional limits of campaign finance regulation.