Citizens United: Why it’s so Important 13 Years On

The Citizens United case of 2010 is a pivotal moment in U.S. campaign finance history. And it’s instrumental in shaping the landscape of modern political spending and the rise of Dark Money in U.S. Politics. Let’s take a look at the parts that matter and why they are still important today some 13 laters.

Key Takeaways

1. Increased Spending: The ruling led to a significant increase in political spending, particularly by Super PACs.
2. Dark Money: It has facilitated the rise of undisclosed, or “dark,” money in U.S. elections.
3. Free Speech Debate: The decision sparked ongoing debates about the balance between free speech and political influence.

Citizens United v FEC

The intricate and contentious world of campaign finance law was thrust into the limelight, challenging longstanding assumptions about corporate political spending and free speech.

At the heart of this case was Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, which produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. They intended to air it during the 2008 Democratic primaries. This act sparked a legal battle over the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold ACT and its provisions on electioneering communications.

The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling not only redefined the legal landscape of political campaigning but also ignited a far-reaching debate on corporate personhood, free speech, and the influence of money in American politics

Is Citizens United a Pac?

Citizens United is not a Political Action Committee (PAC) in the traditional sense; it is a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization.

However, it is widely known for its involvement in the landmark 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which significantly altered campaign finance laws in the United States.

The ruling allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as those efforts were independent of campaign organizations.

This decision also led to the creation of Super PACs (Super Political Action Committees), which can raise and spend unlimited sums of money to advocate for or against political candidates, provided they do not coordinate directly with the campaigns or candidates themselves.

While Citizens United itself is not a PAC, its legal challenge paved the way for the emergence of Super PACs and has had a profound impact on political campaign financing in the United States.

What is Citizens United?

Before we dive into what Citizens United is we should first recognize who is Citizens United and what it stands for.

Who is Citizens United?

David N. Bossie – President and Chairman of the Board Citizens United

Has held the position of president at both Citizens United and the Citizens United Foundation for the past two decades. His role extended into political advising, where he was a Senior Advisor for the Trump/Pence 2020 campaign. Additionally, Bossie, served as a senior strategist, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his 2020 re-election campaign.

In the 2016 U.S. presidential race, he was appointed Deputy Campaign Manager for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. And later assumed the role of Deputy Executive Director for the Trump-Pence Transition Team. From 2017 to 2020, Bossie contributed his expertise as a Fox News contributor.

Citizens United” is a conservative political advocacy group based in the United States, established in 1988. They are a nonprofit organization known for its involvement in the landmark Supreme Court case, “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

What Does Citizens United Do?

Citizens United, established in 1988, is a conservative advocacy group based in the United States that focuses on promoting a conservative agenda, including limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty. It engages in various activities to achieve its goals, including:

1. Producing and Distributing Films and Documentaries: Citizens United is perhaps best known for its production of political documentaries and films. These productions often critique political figures from the opposite side of the political spectrum and advocate for conservative values and policies. The organization’s attempt to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primaries was central to the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC.
2. Legal Advocacy: Citizens United has been involved in significant legal battles, most notably the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. This landmark decision changed campaign finance law in the U.S. by allowing corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts on independent political activities.
3. Political Advocacy: The organization engages in various forms of political advocacy to support its views and objectives. This includes lobbying, publishing policy papers, and endorsing candidates who align with their conservative ideals.
4. Educational Outreach: Citizens United also focuses on educational efforts to promote its conservative values, including organizing events, and conferences, and disseminating information through its website and publications.

Through these activities, Citizens United aims to influence public policy and opinion, advocate for conservative causes, and impact political campaigns and elections, all while championing the principles of freedom of speech and association.

What is the Mission Statement of Citizens United?

Citizens United’s political orientation is recognized for its conservative stance and alignment with right-wing political ideologies. The organization actively supports candidates and policies that align with these ideologies.

The mission of Citizens United is to return control of the United States government to its citizens by focusing on education, advocacy, and grassroots organization. Their goal is to promote traditional American values such as limited government, free enterprise, strong family units, and national sovereignty. Basically, they want to take America back to the 1950s.

Advocacy and media production are a significant part of the organization’s activities. This involves producing and distributing right-wing propaganda films and documentaries on various political subjects. Often reflecting conservative viewpoints. These productions have frequently been a subject of political debate and discussion. As we can see this organization leans very right in terms of political stance.

Understanding Citizens United v. FEC

The case originated when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. They intended to air the documentary during the 2008 Democratic primaries using a video-on-demand service.

However, this ran afoul of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Which prohibited corporations and labor unions from using their general treasury funds to make “electioneering communications”.

Electioneering Communications Defined:

• Legal Definition: Electioneering communications are generally defined as broadcast, cable, or satellite communications. That refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office. Made within certain time periods before an election, and are targeted to the electorate of the candidate.
• Time Frame and Targeting: These communications are specifically defined to occur within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. And they must be accessible to a relevant audience (i.e., the electorate of the mentioned candidate).
• Content of the Communication: Unlike general political advertising, electioneering communications don’t necessarily have to advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. By simply mentioning or featuring a candidate can qualify as electioneering communication if the other criteria are met.

Citizens United Decision

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that:

• The First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, labor unions, and other associations.
• The provision of the McCain-Feingold Act that restricted corporate and union spending on electioneering communications was unconstitutional.
• The concept of “corporate personhood” meant that corporations had a First Amendment right to expressly support political candidates for Congress and the White House.

Debating Corporate Personhood: Understanding the Controversy

Corporate “Personhood“, was first recognized, under The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment dating back to the late 1800s in the case of San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road.

• Citizens United Ruling: The “Citizens United v. FEC” decision in 2010 was the evolution of corporate personhood. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations.
• Implications for Democracy: Critics argue that this equates to giving corporations the same voice as individuals in the political process, potentially leading to undue influence over politics and policy.
• Free Speech vs. Influence: Proponents view it as a protection of free speech, asserting that corporations, as collections of individuals, should have a voice in political discourse.

The Impact of Citizens United on U.S. Politics

The principle of corporate personhood continues to shape the landscape of campaign finance in the U.S., with ongoing discussions about its role in the democratic process. Including the weight of corporate bank accounts and the leverage that has to sway elections.

However, the Court did uphold the requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (8-1 decision) and the ban on direct contributions from corporations and unions to candidate campaigns or party coffers (5-4 decision). But there are ways to bypass this now with the rise of PACs and Super PACs stemming from this court ruling.

How did Citizens United change Campaign Finance laws?

The decision directly paved the way for the creation of Super PACs. These entities can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals, and then spend unlimited sums to advocate for or against political candidates.

However, they cannot donate directly to political candidates or coordinate with their campaigns. For more information on PACs and Super PACs read my article Dirty Secrets: How Cash Powers Political PACs and Super PACs which dives into the rise of PACs but just how much money is involved in elections.

The Financial Floodgates: Citizens United in Politics

The floodgates were opened for unlimited election spending by corporations and unions, significantly amplifying the amount of money poured into political campaigns.

The Dark Money Surge: Citizens United’s Aftermath

While Super PACs must disclose their donors, they can accept unlimited donations from nonprofits that aren’t required to reveal theirs, leading to the phenomenon of undisclosed, or “dark,” money in U.S. elections.

Criticism & Support:

Critics argue the ruling gives undue influence to wealthy donors and special interest groups, undermining the democratic principle of “one person, one vote.” They worry that it allows the wealthy to have disproportionate influence over policy and politics.

Balancing Free Speech vs. Political Influence

Supporters believe it’s a victory for free speech, asserting that individuals, including those organized as corporations, should have the right to voice their political views and influence the political process.

Redefining Free Speech: Citizens United’s Effect

The term “court-packing” traditionally refers to a proposal or effort to increase the number of justices on a court, especially when intended to alter the court’s ideological or political balance. The ideological composition of the U.S. Supreme Court at the time of the Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court was often described as having a conservative majority. Here’s a breakdown of the justices and their general ideological leanings at that time:

Conservative Justices:

Chief Justice	Appointed By President
John Roberts	George W. Bush
Antonin Scalia	Ronald Reagan
Clarence Thomas	George H. W. Bush
Samuel Alito	George W. Bush
*Anthony Kennedy	Ronald Reagan

Liberal Justices:

Chief Justice	Appointed By President
*John Paul Stevens	Gerald Ford
Ruth Bader Ginsburg	Bill Clinton
Stephen Breyer	Bill Clinton
Sonia Sotomayor	Barack Obama

The Citizens United v. FEC decision was a 5-4 ruling, with the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

It’s important to note that while these general ideological labels of “conservative” or “liberal” provide an overview, of the individual. However, each justice can be more nuanced than a simple label might suggest.

End Citizens United

“End Citizens United” is a political action committee (PAC) established in March 2015 with the primary aim of countering the effects of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision and reforming campaign finance in the United States.

This landmark 2010 ruling allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, provided the spending was done independently of the campaign’s coordination.

The decision has been criticized for increasing the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations in elections, thereby potentially undermining democratic principles. End Citizens United seeks to mitigate these effects by advocating for campaign finance reform, including the ultimate goal of overturning the Citizens United decision.

The Money Game: Citizens United and Political Spending

To achieve its objectives, End Citizens United focuses on supporting candidates who pledge to work towards campaign finance reform and raising public awareness about the impact of big money in politics.

The organization operates by collecting donations from grassroots supporters and then using these funds to support political candidates who are committed to reforming campaign finance laws. Additionally, End Citizens United aims to pass state ballot measures and push for reform at the local and state levels, all while working to sway public opinion toward the necessity of reducing the influence of large financial contributions in American politics.

Through these efforts, End Citizens United strives to create a more balanced and equitable electoral process, where the voices of average Americans are not drowned out by the financial might of the few.

Citizens United v FEC Summary

Citizens United v. FEC stands as a pivotal and highly influential Supreme Court decision, particularly in the realm of campaign finance. This ruling has left an indelible mark on the political fabric of the United States, eliciting a spectrum of responses ranging from commendation to fierce criticism. Its ramifications extend far beyond the initial verdict, shaping the dynamics of political funding and expression in profound ways.

The decision has fundamentally altered the landscape of political advocacy, empowering corporations and unions to exert greater influence over elections through financial means. This has sparked ongoing debates about the balance of power in democratic processes, the role of money in politics, and the very nature of free speech as it pertains to corporate entities.

The Power Shift: Citizens United’s Impact

Moreover, the ruling’s impact has been felt in the rise of Super PACs and the influx of ‘dark money’, creating new channels for substantial, often undisclosed, financial contributions to political campaigns. These developments have intensified concerns about transparency and accountability in political financing, raising questions about the potential overshadowing of individual voices in the electoral process.

As the effects of Citizens United v. FEC continue to unfold, it remains a key reference point in discussions about the intersection of law, politics, and corporate influence in American democracy. Its legacy is a testament to the enduring and complex nature of interpreting the First Amendment in the context of modern political realities.

The results were that in the 2020 Presidential election cycle, 14.4 billion dollars were estimated for spending. Where did that money go and who profited from that mostly media corporations? And that’s why Citizens United is still important today some 13 later.

Frequently Asked Questions