Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is a 2010 decision of the United States Supreme Court on the free speech rights of corporations in political campaigns. The nonprofit corporation Citizens United sought to broadcast and advertise a film critical of a presidential candidate close to a primary election, which federal campaign finance law restricted as a corporate funded electioneering communication. The Court held by a five to four majority that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions and other associations, because political speech does not lose constitutional protection simply because its speaker is a corporate entity. The decision struck down key restrictions on independent campaign spending and remains one of the most consequential and debated First Amendment rulings in modern American law.
Facts
Decision Year Decision Date HoldingCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that certain campaign finance restrictions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The court struck down Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations, labor unions, and other organizations. 1 Current StatusCitizens United was highly controversial and remains a subject of widespread public discussion. 1 Case Status
Case Status (category)Controversial / Debated 1 Connections
Authored By
Source Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (Wikipedia)
Decided By
In Legal System
In the Other Atlases
Found In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.
Sources
1. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (Wikipedia)
WikipediaInfobox: decidedate
January 21
Wikipedia lead paragraph
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that certain campaign finance restrictions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The court struck down Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prohibited "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations, labor unions, and other organizations.
Reception section, controversy sentence
was highly controversial and remains a subject of widespread public discussion.
In Group: Free Expression, Religion and Conscience Cases, Introduction, sentences 1-3
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that certain campaign finance restrictions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
View the Source Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.