Event
Citizens United v. FEC
U.S. Supreme Court case of 21 January 2010 on independent political spending by corporations and unions.
- Dates
- 21 Jan 2010
Connections 6
involved
- U.S. Supreme Court decided the case Primary record 1
- Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court Primary record 1
- John Paul Stevens dissented in part, joined by three justices Primary record 1
- Federal Election Commission party Primary record 1
led to
- SpeechNow.org v. FEC Primary record 2
appears in
- Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials Scholarship & press 34
Timeline 1 date
- 21 Jan 2010 Citizens United v. FEC
Proof 4 sources
-
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), No. 08-205, decided 21 January 2010, Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. Reports, via Library of Congress), 21 Jan 2010.
Primary record
The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.
independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption
it uses censorship to control thought
the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity
required to overrule the part of McConnell
Hillary: The Movie
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined
Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption.
If elected officials succumb to improper influences from independent expenditures; if they surrender their best judgment; and if they put expediency before principle, then surely there is cause for concern
Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined
A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
-
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc), No. 08-5223, argued 27 January, decided 26 March 2010, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 26 Mar 2010.
Primary record
Thereafter, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), which resolves this appeal.
-
Congressional Officials Grant Access to Individuals Because They Have Contributed to Campaigns: A Randomized Field Experiment (working paper, earlier version of the AJPS article), Joshua L. Kalla and David E. Broockman, working paper.
Scholarship & press
Assuming the Court does not revisit its decisions in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, our findings raise troubling concerns about their implications for political equality.
18.8% of the groups revealed to be donors met with any senior staffer, while only 5.5%
every United States Representative of a particular political party
-
How Campaign Money Facilitates Access to Policymakers, American Journal of Political Science (blog), 12 May 2015.
Scholarship & press
we do not know if this sort of access translates into tangible influence
Page history 1 change
- Add 55 stories, each checked against its sources96e92fe6
Something wrong or missing? Tell us, with a source, or edit this page.