Facts
- Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, produced Hillary: The Movie, a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary season.
- Citizens United sought to distribute the film and air related advertisements using general treasury funds close to a federal election.
- Federal law (FECA as amended by BCRA) prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for certain independent expenditures and “electioneering communications.”
- Citizens United filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the corporate expenditure restrictions and BCRA’s disclaimer/disclosure requirements were unconstitutional as applied to the film and ads.
- A three-judge district court denied preliminary relief and granted summary judgment to the FEC, concluding the film fell within BCRA’s coverage and that the challenged provisions were constitutional under existing precedent.
- The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and ordered reargument on whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell addressing corporate electioneering communications.
Issues
- Whether the First Amendment permits the federal government to bar corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for independent expenditures and electioneering communications.
- Whether BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements for electioneering communications are unconstitutional as applied to a nonprofit corporation’s film and related advertisements.
- Whether prior decisions sustaining corporate expenditure restrictions should be overruled.
Decision
- The Court reversed in part and affirmed in part in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy.
- The Court held unconstitutional the federal prohibition on corporate and union independent expenditures from general treasury funds, including restrictions on electioneering communications.
- The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and overruled McConnell v. FEC to the extent it upheld BCRA’s application of those restrictions to corporate electioneering communications.
- The Court upheld BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure provisions as applied to the film and advertisements.
- Justice Stevens dissented from the invalidation of the corporate expenditure limits but agreed that the disclosure and disclaimer requirements could be sustained.
Legal Principles
- Political speech receives the strongest First Amendment protection; laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny.
- The government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s identity, including corporate identity.
- Preventing quid pro quo corruption (or its appearance) can justify limits on direct contributions, but independent expenditures—because they are not coordinated with candidates—cannot be restricted on an anti-corruption rationale alone.
- Interests in equalizing influence or reducing the relative strength of certain speakers are not legitimate bases for suppressing political speech.
- Disclaimer and disclosure requirements for electioneering communications may be upheld because they do not bar speech and serve an informational interest for voters, even when expenditure bans are unconstitutional.
Conclusion
The Court held that the First Amendment forbids federal restrictions on corporate and union independent expenditures and electioneering communications funded by general treasury money, while permitting BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure regime for such communications.