Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the U.S. Reports opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Citizens United, a nonprofit, produced a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) restricted such electioneering communications by corporations and unions. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that these restrictions violated the First Amendment, holding that corporations and unions have the same free speech rights as individuals in the context of political spending.

3) Why It Mattered
This case dramatically changed campaign finance law, allowing unlimited independent political spending by corporations, unions, and outside groups. It led to the rise of Super PACs.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Robust First Amendment protection for political spending by corporations and unions.
• Took Away: Limits on independent expenditures near elections.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Supporters say the Court protected free expression; critics argue it unleashed moneyed interests into politics and undermined electoral fairness.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on independent political ads. This decision reshaped U.S. elections by vastly increasing outside spending.

• First Amendment
• Campaign Finance
• Corporate Speech
• Elections