π Definition of 'Citizens United'
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark Supreme Court case that dramatically altered campaign finance regulations in the United States. Decided in 2010, the ruling centered on whether the government could restrict political spending by corporations and unions in candidate elections.
π History and Background
The case originated with a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, produced by Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) argued that the film violated campaign finance laws, specifically the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold. This act placed restrictions on corporate and union spending on electioneering communications.
π Key Principles
- π£ Corporate Personhood: The Court affirmed that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals, including the right to free speech.
- π° Independent Expenditures: The ruling stated that the government cannot restrict independent political spending by corporations and unions in candidate elections. Independent expenditures are funds spent to support or oppose a candidate but are not directly coordinated with the candidate's campaign.
- π« Direct Contributions: It is important to note that the Citizens United decision did not change the laws regarding direct contributions to candidates, which remain regulated.
- π’ Disclosure Requirements: While the Court allowed for unlimited independent spending, it upheld disclosure requirements, meaning organizations must disclose their donors.
π Real-world Examples
Following Citizens United, Super PACs and other independent expenditure groups have become significant players in US elections. Here are a few examples:
- πΊ Television Ads: Super PACs can run unlimited television ads supporting or opposing candidates.
- βοΈ Mailers and Digital Campaigns: These groups can also engage in extensive mailer and digital advertising campaigns.
- π€ Issue Advocacy: They can fund issue advocacy campaigns that indirectly support or oppose candidates.
βοΈ Conclusion
The Citizens United decision remains highly controversial. Supporters argue it protects free speech rights, while critics contend it has led to increased corporate influence in politics and a flood of money into elections. The long-term effects of the ruling continue to shape the landscape of American campaign finance.