π― Learning Objectives
- π§ Students will be able to define the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) Supreme Court case.
- π Students will analyze the core arguments made by both sides in the Citizens United case.
- βοΈ Students will explain the Supreme Court's majority opinion and key dissenting arguments.
- π Students will evaluate the immediate and long-term impacts of the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and elections.
- π£οΈ Students will discuss the ongoing debate surrounding money, free speech, and democracy.
π Materials
- π Whiteboard or projector.
- π Handouts with key terms and case summary (optional).
- π» Internet access for supplementary videos or articles.
- ποΈ Pens/pencils and paper for notes.
π§ Warm-up (5 mins)
Question: "Imagine you want to tell everyone about an issue you care deeply about during an election. How much money do you think you should be allowed to spend to get your message out? Why?"
- π‘ Facilitate a brief class discussion, encouraging students to consider both the right to speak and potential influences of money.
π Main Instruction: Unpacking Citizens United
ποΈ I. Background of the Case
- π The Players: Citizens United (a conservative non-profit organization) wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary season.
- π¬ The Law: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Act) prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" (ads mentioning a candidate close to an election).
- βοΈ The Challenge: Citizens United argued that these restrictions violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.
- π€ First Amendment Context: Remind students of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and assembly.
π§ββοΈ II. The Supreme Court Ruling (2010)
- π’ Corporate Personhood: The Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment free speech rights as individuals.
- π° Independent Expenditures: It held that the government cannot restrict independent political spending by corporations and unions in candidate elections. Such spending is considered a form of free speech.
- π Rationale: The majority argued that limiting such spending would infringe upon the marketplace of ideas and that independent expenditures, by definition, do not lead to quid pro quo corruption (direct exchange of money for political favors).
- π Dissenting Arguments: The dissenting justices argued that corporations are not people, and their ability to spend unlimited amounts of money could distort the electoral process and lead to undue influence and perceived corruption.
π€ III. Key Arguments Explored
| Argument |
Pro-Citizens United (Majority) |
Anti-Citizens United (Dissent/Critics) |
| π£οΈ Free Speech |
Corporations/unions have First Amendment rights; spending money to communicate is speech. |
Corporate money isn't speech; it drowns out individual voices and distorts democracy. |
| π« Corruption |
Independent expenditures don't cause quid pro quo corruption. |
Unlimited spending leads to perceived corruption, unequal access, and undue influence. |
| π Leveling the Playing Field |
Government shouldn't regulate speech based on who is speaking (e.g., corporation vs. individual). |
Unlimited corporate spending creates an unlevel playing field, favoring the wealthy. |
| π‘ Transparency |
Disclosure requirements are sufficient to address concerns. |
Disclosure is often insufficient, leading to "dark money" and hidden influences. |
π IV. Impact of the Ruling
- π Rise of Super PACs: The ruling paved the way for the creation of Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs), which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals to advocate for or against political candidates.
- π΅οΈββοΈ "Dark Money": While the ruling affirmed disclosure for direct campaign contributions, it has been criticized for enabling more "dark money" (political spending where the donor's identity is not disclosed) through certain types of non-profit organizations.
- π Increased Election Spending: Post-Citizens United, there has been a significant increase in independent expenditures in federal and state elections.
- π₯ Political Polarization: Critics argue it has contributed to political polarization by allowing well-funded special interests to dominate political discourse.
β
Assessment: Practice Quiz
Answer the following questions based on the lesson:
- β What was the primary legal question addressed in the Citizens United v. FEC case?
- π§ Which piece of legislation did Citizens United challenge, and what did that law restrict?
- π Briefly explain the Supreme Court's majority opinion regarding corporate and union political spending.
- π Name one key argument made by the dissenting justices in the Citizens United case.
- π― How did the Citizens United ruling impact the creation and function of Super PACs?
- π Define "independent expenditure" in the context of campaign finance.
- βοΈ In your own words, describe one significant long-term consequence of the Citizens United ruling on American elections.