Citizens United v. FEC in the context of "Corporate personhood"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Citizens United v. FEC in the context of "Corporate personhood"




⭐ Core Definition: Citizens United v. FEC

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding campaign finance laws, in which the Court found that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, and others criticizing it for reaffirming the longstanding principle of corporate personhood, and for allowing large corporations to wield disproportionate political power.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that the prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violated the First Amendment. The ruling barred restrictions on corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations from independent expenditures, allowing groups to independently support political candidates with financial resources. In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people."

↓ Menu

In this Dossier

Citizens United v. FEC in the context of Occupy Wall Street

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) was a left-wing populist and progressive movement against economic inequality, capitalism, corporate greed, big finance, and the influence of money in politics. It began in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Financial District, and lasted for fifty-nine days—from September 17 to November 15, 2011.

The motivations for Occupy Wall Street largely resulted from public distrust in the private sector during the aftermath of the Great Recession in the United States. There were many particular points of interest leading up to the Occupy movement that angered populist and left-wing groups. For instance, the 2008 bank bailouts under the George W. Bush administration utilized congressionally appropriated taxpayer funds to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which purchased toxic assets from failing banks and financial institutions. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC in January 2010 allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures without government regulation. This angered many populist and left-wing groups that viewed the ruling as a way for moneyed interests to corrupt public institutions and legislative bodies, such as the United States Congress.

↑ Return to Menu

Citizens United v. FEC in the context of Campaign finance in the United States

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600 ($980,896 in 2024) while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million ($3.00 million in 2024); in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million ($9.31 million in 2024) to $26.53 million ($28.51 million in 2024).

In 2020, nearly $14 billion was spent on federal election campaigns in the United States — "making it the most expensive campaign in U.S. history", "more than double" what was spent in the 2016 election. Critics assert that following a number of Supreme Court decisions — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in particular—the "very wealthy" are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns (through Political Action Committees, especially "Super PACs"), and to prevent voters from knowing who is trying to influence them (contributing "dark money" that masks the donor's identity). Consequently, as of at least 2022, critics (such as the Brennan Center for Justice) allege "big money dominates U.S. political campaigns to a degree not seen in decades" and is "drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans."

↑ Return to Menu