Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Annotated

Thursday, January 30, 2025

Fifteen years ago this month, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC). The decision has transformed how elections are funded in the US, and its ramifications have continued to reduce the limitations on who can contribute, how they can do so, and whether they're required to disclose their contributions. The rise of "super PACs," "dark money," and their coordination with candidates arguably can all be attributed to the 5"4 decision that struck down the court's own findings in prior cases: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (McConnell being the former Majority Leader of the US Senate Mitch McConnell).

Posted by Dbt2 at 06:45 PM | 3 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The case originated with a conservative political action committee (PAC) that wanted to air commercials directing broadcast and cable television viewers to their film, Hillary: The Movie. Intended as a documentary covering then-Senator Hillary Clinton's career in light of her campaign for US president, Hillary: The Movie was made available via video-on-demand. Because the advertisements would run within a specific window prohibited under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), colloquially known as the McCain-Feingold Act, Citizens United sued the Federal Election Commission on constitutional grounds, saying its First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed upon. The US District Court for the District of Columbia, where the suit was brought, found for the FEC. Citizens United appealed the case to the US Supreme Court.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More FTA:

The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was less concerned with the specifics of the original case (could Citizens United run the ads without penalties?) and more with the larger issues of corporate free (political) speech. It was this issue that began what might be called an opening of the floodgates for money in elections: overturning the court's previous findings (a rejection of the traditional stare decisis) and more than 100 years of campaign finance laws meant to prevent corruption, or the appearance of it, made possible new and more covert mechanisms for individuals, groups, and corporations to participate in the election of federal officials.

#1 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2025-01-30 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is the most important basic flaw in our democracy that needs to be fixed, as it effects all the other problems.

When money is speech, what you end up with is... exactly what we have right now; a billionaire President werking for himself and the richest men in the country, some of whom are Nazi sympathizers and all of which are now the Oligarchs that control the Gov... because they have almost all the money, therefore almost all the speech.

Trumpers sometimes pretend to agree with this, but that now means having to admit they were bamboozled, so it rarely happens.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2025-01-30 08:33 PM | Reply

GOP laughed at us for bemoaning this decision as the end of the USA as we know it. But here we are. We were right. And we're all screwed

#3 | Posted by hamburglar at 2025-01-30 09:31 PM | Reply