Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In early 2008, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit, finishes producing a documentary critical of Senator Hillary Clinton, then a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. They want to release it on-demand through cable TV during the primary season. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, corporations cannot fund "electioneering communications" naming a federal candidate within thirty days of a primary. The Federal Election Commission tells them the film qualifies. They sue. The case reaches the Supreme Court, which decides not just the narrow film question but the broader rule.

Citizens United argues that the First Amendment protects political speech regardless of who is speaking, and that drawing a line at corporate speakers silences the same nonprofits and small advocacy groups the campaign-finance regime claims to protect. The FEC argues that money is not the same as speech, that unlimited corporate spending drowns out individual voices, and that allowing it inevitably tilts elections toward whoever can pay the most.

If Citizens United wins, corporate and union money flows freely into independent political advocacy, with consequences for elections largely unknown. If the FEC wins, the line drawn in 2002 holds, and Congress retains the power to limit how much organized money shapes federal campaigns.