Citizens United: The Case That Changed Everything
How the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC unleashed unlimited corporate spending in elections and reshaped American democracy.
In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential rulings in American political history. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government cannot restrict independent political spending by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The 5-4 decision effectively equated money with speech and corporations with people for purposes of political spending. The immediate result was the creation of super PACs and an explosion of outside money in elections — fundamentally altering how American democracy functions.
Key Facts
- The ruling struck down provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) that prohibited corporate-funded electioneering communications near elections.
- Within two years of the decision, outside spending in federal elections more than doubled.
- The decision led directly to the creation of super PACs via the related SpeechNow.org v. FEC ruling.
- Polls consistently show that 75-80% of Americans across party lines oppose the Citizens United decision.
- Justice Stevens' 90-page dissent warned that the ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation."
How Citizens Can Fight Back
- Ratify a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United — multiple proposals have been introduced in Congress.
- Pass the Democracy for All Amendment, which would give Congress and states the authority to regulate campaign spending.
- Support organizations working specifically on this issue, including Move to Amend, End Citizens United, and American Promise.
- Elect state legislators who will pass resolutions calling for an Article V convention to propose an amendment.
- Join movements like Project: 28 that make overturning Citizens United a cornerstone of constitutional reform.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Citizens United be overturned without a constitutional amendment?
Practically, no. Since the ruling is based on constitutional interpretation (First Amendment), only a constitutional amendment or a future Supreme Court reversal could overturn it. Given the current Court composition, an amendment is the more realistic path.
What did Citizens United actually decide?
The case originated from a dispute over whether a conservative nonprofit could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton close to an election. The Court ruled broadly that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, and unions.
How close are we to a constitutional amendment?
Over 20 states have passed resolutions calling for an amendment, and multiple amendments have been introduced in Congress. However, the two-thirds threshold in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of states makes this a long-term effort requiring sustained citizen engagement.
Related Topics
Ready to be part of the solution?