[84] Further, both Sanders and Hillary Clinton said that, if they were elected, they would only have appointed Supreme Court Justices who were committed to the repeal of Citizens United. "[161][162] A 2016 study in the Journal of Law and Economics found "that Citizens United is associated with an increase in Republicans’ election probabilities in state house races of approximately 4 percentage points overall and 10 or more percentage points in several states. What was the Court’s reasoning for its decision?

A series of cases protects individuals from legally compelled payment of union dues to support political speech. ", "Divided court strikes down campaign money restrictions", "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", "ACLU May Reverse Course On Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling", "The Citizens United Fallout, Democrats plan to redouble their efforts to stifle corporate free speech", "President Wrong on Citizens United Case", "How Corporate Money Will Reshape Politics: Restoring Free Speech in Elections", "Poll: Public agrees with principles of campaign finance decision", "Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Ruling", "President Blasts Supreme Court Over Citizens United Decision", "Gloves come off after Obama rips Supreme Court ruling", "If Alito Did Say 'Not True' About Obama's Claim, He May Have Had A Point – The Two-Way – Breaking News, Analysis Blog", "Alito Mouths 'NOT TRUE' At State Of The Union (Video)", "Justice Alito mouths 'not true' when Obama blasts Supreme Court ruling in State of the Union address", "Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's words "not true" sum up President Obama's State of the Union Address", "John McCain, Russ Feingold diverge on court ruling", "Grayson: Court's Campaign Finance Decision "Worst Since Dred Scott, "Group Calls For Constitutional Amendment to Overturn High Court's Campaign Finance Ruling", "Boswell pushes constitutional amendment to overturn SCOTUS ruling", "Sen. Kerry backs changing Constitution to deal with Supreme Court decision", "Sen. Bernie Sanders, I–Vt., offers constitutional amendment on corporate "citizenship, "McCain skeptical Supreme Court decision can be countered", "Snowe troubled by U.S. Supreme Court ruling to remove limits on corporate and union spending in political campaigns", "Time to Reign in Out-of-Control Corporate Influences on Our Democracy", "Sanders Files Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Supreme Court's Citizens United Decision", "Justice Stevens Rips Citizens United, But Disagrees With Hillary Clinton's Litmus Test", "Bernie Sanders' litmus test: Overturn Citizens United", "Jimmy Carter: The U.S. Is an "Oligarchy With Unlimited Political Bribery, "Head of OSCE election body concerned about U.S. Supreme Court ruling on election spending", "Money Isn't Speech and Corporations Aren't People", "What Should Congress Do About Citizens United? Citizens United ("Citizens") is a non-profit corporation with the stated purpose of being "dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control [t]hrough the combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization."

The group produced a television advertisement that reveals several legislative actions taken by John McCain, which aired on Fox News Channel. [131] In April 2010, they introduced such legislation in the Senate and House, respectively. "[31] Scalia argued that the Free Press clause was originally intended to protect the distribution of written materials and did not only apply to the media specifically. Citizens United is a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization in the United States founded in 1988. By requiring registration as a political committee and limiting the monetary amount that an individual may contribute to a political committee, SpeechNow and the other plaintiffs asserted that the Act unconstitutionally restricted the individuals' freedom of speech by limiting the amount that an individual can contribute to SpeechNow and thus the amount the organization may spend. Obama lashed out at the ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address. Citing Austin, Stevens argued that corporations unfairly influence the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy joined in full by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito and in part by Justice Clarence Thomas. While granting permission to file a certiorari petition, the US Supreme Court agreed to stay the Montana ruling, although Justices Ginsburg and Breyer wrote a short statement urging the Court "to consider whether, in light of the huge sums of money currently deployed to buy candidate's allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway". Stevens supported his argument by citing Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,[37] where the Court held that $3 million in independent expenditures in a judicial race raised sufficient questions about a judge's impartiality to require the judge to recuse himself in a future case involving the spender. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), Theodore B. Olson, The Washington Post, January 20, 2011. Being a mother can be very difficult, but it’s certainly a wonderful experience.

[19], Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the initial opinion of the Court, holding that the BCRA allowed the showing of the film. The following is a list of films produced by Citizens United Productions. An analysis of the ruling and a possible legislative response", "O'Connor Mildly Criticizes Court's Campaign Finance Decision", "The Transformation of Freedom of Speech: Unsnarling the Twisted Roots of Citizens United v. FEC", "The Worst Supreme Court Decisions Since 1960", "Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Financing", "High Court Hypocrisy: Dick Durbin's got a good idea", In Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance, the Public Dissents, Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court's decision on campaign financing, Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech" but have mixed views on other issues at heart of new Supreme Court ruling, Poll: Public agrees with principles of campaign finance decision, "Citizens United :: Press Releases :: Citizens United Releases Results of National Opinion Poll on Campaign Finance "Reform, Majority of Americans Support Campaign Finance Reform, "Courts Take On Campaign Finance Decision", "A Guide to the Current Rules For Federal Elections: What Changed in the 2010 Election Cycle", "Justices strike down taxpayer-supported campaign spending law", "Supreme Court strikes down Arizona campaign finance law", "Justices Strike Down Arizona Campaign Finance Law", "Campaign Funding Measure in Arizona Overturned", "Court Declines to Revisit Its Citizens United Decision", "Supreme Court Again Smacks Down Campaign-Finance Reformers", "Meet Shaun McCutcheon, the Republican Activist Trying to Make History at the Supreme Court", "McCutcheon et al v. Federal Election Commission Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief", "Supreme Court of the United States Shaun McCutcheon and Republican National Committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Federal Election Commission", "McCutcheon, et al. The Court overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had restricted corporate spending on electioneering communications. [140][141] In an online chat with web community Reddit, President Obama endorsed further consideration of a constitutional amendment and stated "Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesn't revisit it)". Nat'l Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie, United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut. The group appealed the case to the Supreme Court. [23] Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky called it "one of the most important First Amendment cases in years". Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission", "Top 10 Controversial Supreme Court Cases", "Text-Only NPR.org : How Is Kavanaugh Likely To Rule On Critical Issues? [64] On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law[65] to open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. When he did, the "Questions Presented" to the parties were, however, more expansive, touching on the issues Kennedy's opinion had identified. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".

Most of these are non-binding resolutions, but three states—Vermont, California, and Illinois—called for an Article V Convention to draft and propose a federal constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself.

Another Green Party officer, Rich Whitney, stated "In a transparently political decision, a majority of the US Supreme Court overturned its own recent precedent and paid tribute to the giant corporate interests that already wield tremendous power over our political process and political speech. "[117] The ruling meant the end of similar matching-fund programs in Connecticut, Maine and a few other places according to David Primo, a political science professor at University of Rochester who was an expert witness for the law's challengers.[118].

According to Open Secrets, outside spending by election cycle had been increasing between the 1990 (the earliest data Open Secrets publishes) and 2010. The justices voted the same as they had in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., a similar 2007 case, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito in the majority. “In Citizens United, the court reminded us that when our government seeks ‘to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,’” Bossie and Olson wrote in "The Washington Post" in January of 2011.

Stevens concluded his dissent by writing: At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011), Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Montana (2011). [18] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009.