Citizens United
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned a six decade-long prohibition against spending corporate and union treasury money to directly campaign for or against federal candidates. Corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending money from their general funds on express advocacy at the federal level since 1947, when Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act.
Prohibiting corporations and unions from using treasury money to influence elections was previously upheld by the Supreme Court in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990), and most recently in McConnell v. FEC (2003) after the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). In McConnell, the Court noted that, "Congress' power to prohibit corporations and unions from using funds in their treasuries to finance advertisements expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates in federal elections has been firmly embedded in our law."
By striking down the ban on express political advocacy by corporations and unions, the Court has greatly increased the likelihood of spending by such groups to influence federal campaigns. It has also opened the door to the corrupting influence that flows from such expenditures, as corporations and unions use their spending, or the threat or promise of such spending, as a means to influence decision-making by Congress. Not surprisingly, Election 2010 broke all previous records for corporate spending - not just in federal races, but in state races, too, in Maine and all around the country.
While most of the decision is bad news for reform-minded Americans, there was one positive piece of the decision. The Court upheld disclosure requirements, saying:
"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens withthe information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation'spolitical speech advances the corporation's interest inmaking profits, and citizens can see whether elected offi-cials are "‘in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests." 540 U. S., at 259 (opinion of SCALIA, J.); see MCFL, supra, at 261. The First Amendment protects political speech;and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."
Latest Polling:
Two years after Citizens United, voters fed up with money in politics (January 2012)
The latest survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps and Public Campaign Action Fund shows that the Citizens United decision is intensely unpopular. Americans across all parties oppose the ruling; among all voters, 62 percent oppose the decision and nearly half (46 percent) strongly oppose it. More than half of all voters say they would support a constitutional amendment to reverse the opinion.
Small Businesses Reject Role of Money in Politics; View Citizens United Decision as Bad for Business (January 2012)
According to opinion polling released by the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business Majority, two-thirds of small business owners see this decision as bad for small business.
On Air:
Corporations Are NOT People, Jeff Clements on Speaking in Maine, MPBN, 1/20/2012
Jeff Clements, founder of Free Speech for People, Addresses MCCE's Annual Meeting in November 2011 and rebroadcast on MPBN.
Read More:
Download Citizens United decision (PDF)
Background on the case, Brennan Center for Justice
Watch a short video from The Story of Stuff - The Story of Citizens United v. FEC (2011)
In the News:
Capital Investments: Thanks to the Citizens United Decision, Money is Swamping our Politics and our Government Like Never Before, The American Prospect, January/February 2012
Three Campaign-Finance Lawsuits on the Heels of Citizens, The National Law Journal, 1/3/2012
Citizen Bopp, The American Prospect, 1/2/2012
Sandra Day O'Connor Worries About SCOTUS's New Tack on Campaign Finance, Slate, 6/27/2011
The Man Behind Citizens United is Just Getting Started, Mother Jones, May/June 2011
Money Talks, Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker, 4/11/2011
McComish, the Supreme Court and the Fiesta Bowl Scandal, Doug Kendall, HuffPost, 4/4/2011
When Democracy Weakens, Bob Herbert, New York Times, 2/11/2011
From Anatole France to the Cowardly Lion: Supreme Court and the Distortion of the First Amendment, Brenda Wright, American Constitution Society bolg, 1/24/2011
A Year Later, Citizens United Reshapes Politics, NPR, 1/21/2011
Citizens United, One Year Later, The Atlantic Wire, 1/21/2011
Following the Activity One Year After Citizens United, Ellen Miller, Huffington Post, 1/21/2011
Election Spending Skyrockets After 'Citizens United', NPR, 10/12/2010
Repairing Citizens United becomes a test for three GOP senators, E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, 9/13/2010
As election season begins, spending on campaigns breaks records, PBS, 9/3/2010
The next battle in campaign finance reform, Christian Science Monitor, 4/30/2010
Supreme Court got it wrong: Corporations are not human beings, Portland Press Herald, 3/17/2010
A Quest to End Spending Rules for Campaigns, David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times, 1/25/2010
Justices May Rule Soon on Campaign-Finance Case, Robert Barnes, The Washington Post, 1/9/2010
Court Rolls Back Limits on Election Spending, David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times, 1/9/2010
