Debate Desk
Did Citizens United Let Big Money Buy American Elections?
The 2010 decision protected independent political speech by groups of citizens; it did not allow contributions to candidates beyond the legal limits.
The claim
Critics say that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) opened the floodgates to corporate and union spending in elections, that wealthy donors now dominate politics through super PACs, and that the case treats money as speech and corporations as people.
The answer in three points
- The case concerned a nonprofit group that wanted to distribute a film critical of a candidate. The government argued that it could ban the film under a law restricting corporate spending. The Court held that the First Amendment protects political speech by groups, including corporations and unions, and that independent spending cannot be banned. A rule that lets the government silence a book or a film because of who paid for it is a danger to everyone.
- The decision did not change the limits on direct contributions to candidates, which remain in place. Independent expenditures that are not coordinated with a campaign are treated differently, and disclosure rules for many of them remain.
- Spending does not guarantee victory. Candidates with large spending advantages have lost, and the largest spenders in recent cycles have included people of both parties and causes of all kinds. Political speech costs money because reaching voters does.
Limits on speech should worry us more than the amounts spent on it, because the power to limit can be used against any of us.
The numbers
- The Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on January 21, 2010, by a vote of 5 to 4.
- The decision struck down a ban on independent corporate expenditures for electioneering communications in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, according to the Court's opinion.
- The Federal Election Commission reports that individual contribution limits to candidates are set by law and adjusted for inflation in each election cycle.
What they will say next
"Corporations are not people." The ruling did not say that. It held that the First Amendment protects speech, whatever the speaker, as it protects newspapers, which are corporations.
"Money corrupts." Corruption is a crime and should be prosecuted. Limiting speech because it might persuade is a different matter, and it would let incumbents write the rules.
"Super PACs favor the rich." They also let ordinary donors pool their money, and supporters of both parties use them. The remedy for wealthy influence is more speech and more disclosure.
"Overturn it by amendment." A constitutional amendment that lets Congress limit political spending would give those in office power over those who criticize them. That is a risk.
The First Amendment protects the speech we oppose as well as the speech we favor.
"Disclosure is needed so voters know who is paying." Many conservatives and liberals agree, and disclosure rules for political spending are a reasonable response. They respect speech while giving voters information.