What is Citizens United?

Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation that produced a 90-minute documentary critical of Hillary Clinton -- 'Hillary: The Movie' -- and sought to advertise and broadcast it during the 2008 Democratic primary season. The Federal Election Commission determined that distributing the film through cable video-on-demand and airing advertisements for it violated Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, also known as McCain-Feingold). Section 203 prohibited corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to pay for 'electioneering communications' -- broadcast, cable, or satellite ads that mention a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Citizens United sued, arguing Section 203 violated the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on January 21, 2010, that Section 203's prohibition on corporate independent political expenditures was unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The majority held that the government may not suppress political speech based solely on the speaker's corporate identity: 'If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.' The Court distinguished between direct contributions to candidate campaigns -- which Congress may still limit as an anti-corruption measure under Buckley v. Valeo (1976) -- and independent expenditures, which convey no risk of quid pro quo corruption because they are not coordinated with candidates.

Citizens United expressly overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), which had held that states could restrict corporate political speech to prevent the 'corrosive and distorting effects' of corporate wealth. It also overruled McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), to the extent McConnell had upheld Section 203's electioneering-communications restrictions. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the principal dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that the majority's ruling threatened to undermine democratic self-governance by allowing concentrated corporate wealth to distort electoral politics. On one point -- the disclosure requirement -- the Court ruled 8-1 in the government's favor, with only Justice Thomas dissenting; corporations and unions must still report their electioneering expenditures and identify their donors to the FEC.

Citizens United did not itself create super PACs. Two months later, on March 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided SpeechNow.org v. FEC, relying on Citizens United to hold that FECA's contribution limits cannot be applied to groups that make only independent expenditures and accept no money from candidates or parties. The FEC confirmed in Advisory Opinion 2010-11 (July 22, 2010) that 'independent expenditure-only committees' -- quickly dubbed super PACs by journalists -- could accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals, provided the committee makes no direct contributions to candidates and does not coordinate with campaigns. Every major 2028 presidential campaign will have affiliated super PACs that raise and spend unlimited outside money under the legal framework Citizens United created.