Let’s analyze Citizens United v. FEC, an important case discussed in the first chapter of our text. You can find the opinion here. (Hint: when reading the case, don’t start with the “syllabus” – go to the “opinion.”)

Here are the key elements:

1. Facts of case

Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, made a film during the 2008 election questioning then-Sen. Hillary Clinton’s fitness to be president. Citizens United wanted to air the film on cable and advertise for it on TV. This was an apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the McCain–Feingold Act. A lower court ruled against Citizens United, saying the movie could not be shown prior to the election.

The McCain-Feingold Act prohibited corporations and unions from using general funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. (Note: the law does not apply to PACs, or Political Action Committees, which can raise money for political ads, but they are bound by various restrictions. Scroll down to the end to learn more about new SuperPACs.)

2. Legal issue (what the court is trying to decide)

The court had to decide whether to continue to apply previous rulings (stare decisis) to the issue of corporate speech in elections. Specifically, would the court follow the precedent set in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , 494 U. S. 652 (1990), which had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity?

3. Decision (what the court ruled)

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United and overruled Austin.

The court said:

Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.

4. Analysis (why the court ruled this way)

The court felt that the law was an unacceptable ban on speech. It pointed out that political speech has the highest level of protection under the First Amendment, and that there was no way to justify classifying corporate speech as being different than an individual’s speech.

According to the opinion:

Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. … The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.”

The court pointed out that the law represented an “outright ban” on political communication. The court gave several examples of speech that would be a felony under the law, which it deemed a form of censorship:

The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

However, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens disagreed with the ruling and said that corporations were never meant to be equivalent to people as far as free speech rights. Besides, he said, Citizens United could have aired the movie whenever it wanted, except the 30 days prior to the election, without violating the law.

5. Questions for classmates