Required caseCampaign Finance

Citizens United v. FEC

2010·Unit 5: Political Participation

Full name: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Independent political spending by corporations and unions is protected speech and cannot be limited by the government.

Practice the comparison FRQRead the brief
Decided
2010
Clause at issue
First Amendment: Freedom of Speech
Course unit
Unit 5
Case number
14 of 14

Case brief

The three pieces every AP answer about this case should get right.

  1. 1

    The facts

    Citizens United produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton and sought to distribute it close to an election in ways restricted by federal campaign finance law.

  2. 2

    The constitutional question

    May the government ban independent political expenditures by corporations and unions under the First Amendment?

  3. 3

    The holding

    The Court struck down restrictions on independent corporate political spending.

Why it matters

  • Political speech lies at the core of First Amendment protection.
  • Independent expenditures are not the same as direct contributions to candidates.
  • The government may not suppress speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.

Check yourself

Three questions on Citizens United v. FEC: the holding, a common mix-up, and how it differs from another required case.

Question 1 of 3

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that

SCOTUS comparison FRQ

Can you connect Citizens United v. FEC to a case you’ve never seen?

The exam hands you an unfamiliar case and asks how it relates to a required one. Practice that here: name the shared principle, state the holding, and explain the connection.

Start the comparison

You’ll compare it with

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Three parts

  1. A. Identify the shared principle
  2. B. Describe the required case
  3. C. Explain the connection

Frequently asked questions

What kind of spending did the Court protect?

Independent spending on political speech. Citizens United wanted to distribute a film critical of Hillary Clinton close to an election, and federal law restricted that. The Court held that corporations and unions may spend their own money on election speech when they are not coordinating with a candidate.

Does this case wipe out limits on checks written to a campaign?

No. Independent expenditures and direct contributions are different. The holding is about speech the speaker funds on its own. Limits on giving money straight to a candidate are a separate question.

Why did the corporate identity of the speaker matter?

The government had restricted the spending because the speaker was a corporation. The Court said political speech stays protected under the First Amendment even when the speaker is a corporation or a union.

How is this unlike the other required speech cases?

Schenck and Tinker ask whether a particular message can be punished. Citizens United asks who may pay for election speech. Use it when the new scenario is about independent political spending, not about a school protest or a wartime leaflet.

The other required cases