What Is Citizens United? The 2010 Ruling That Unleashed Corporate Political Spending

American campaign finance law has a long history of attempting to limit the influence of wealthy interests on elections. The Tillman Act of 1907 prohibited corporations from contributing directly to federal campaigns. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its 1974 amendments created comprehensive limits on contributions and expenditures.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as McCain-Feingold) went further, prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to pay for "electioneering communications" — broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Citizens United was a conservative nonprofit that made a 90-minute film critical of Hillary Clinton and wanted to air it and run ads for it during the 2008 Democratic primary. The FEC ruled this would violate McCain-Feingold. Citizens United sued, and the case ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that the government cannot restrict political speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, like individuals, have First Amendment rights. Political spending is a form of protected speech. Therefore, the government cannot ban corporations or unions from spending money to express political views independently of candidates and campaigns.

The majority reasoned that the "anti-distortion" rationale for campaign finance restrictions — the idea that corporate wealth distorts the political marketplace — was not a sufficient basis for restricting First Amendment rights. The dissenters (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor) argued that the majority was overturning a century of campaign finance law and precedent, and that the Court had gone far beyond the question originally presented to it.

President Obama famously criticized the ruling at the 2010 State of the Union address, with the justices sitting in the front row: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections." Justice Alito visibly shook his head and mouthed "not true."