Citizens United v. FEC and Super PACs

The case asks a simple question with a big consequence: if the First Amendment protects speech, does it protect the money spent to broadcast that speech? The Court said yes. An ad urging voters to support or reject a candidate costs money to make and air, so a law capping that spending caps the speech itself. Corporations and unions, the Court held, have the same right to spend on political advocacy as individuals do, as long as the spending is independent of any campaign.

Before Citizens United, federal law banned corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent political ads close to an election. After the ruling, that ban fell, and a new vehicle appeared: the super PAC, a political action committee that can raise and spend unlimited money on ads and other advocacy, as long as it does not coordinate with a candidate's campaign. Traditional PACs still face strict contribution limits because they can give money directly to candidates; super PACs trade that direct-giving power for unlimited independent spending. The Court's reasoning rests on a distinction between contributions, which can corrupt because they go straight into a candidate's hands, and independent expenditures, which the Court saw as carrying a lower corruption risk because the candidate never touches or directs the money.

This logic does not stand alone. It extends the same move the Court made in symbolic speech cases like Tinker v. Des Moines, where wearing a black armband counted as speech even though no words were spoken. Citizens United applies that same expansive view of what counts as expression to money, linking campaign finance back to core First Amendment doctrine and setting up the flood of outside spending that now shapes modern elections.