Citizens United V. FEC: AP Gov Explained

by Alex Braham 41 views

Hey guys! Let's break down Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), a landmark Supreme Court case that's super important for your AP Government class. This case basically reshaped campaign finance laws in the United States, and understanding it is crucial for acing that exam. So, grab your notes, and let’s dive in!

What's the Big Deal with Citizens United v. FEC?

Citizens United v. FEC is one of those cases that everyone in political science and law just loves to talk about. Why? Because it touches on fundamental aspects of free speech, corporate rights, and the role of money in politics. At its core, the case revolves around the question: Should corporations and unions have the same free speech rights as individuals when it comes to political spending?

The backstory is pretty interesting. A non-profit organization called Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton right before the 2008 presidential election. The FEC argued that this violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold. This act had restrictions on when and how corporations and unions could spend money on political advertising. Citizens United sued, arguing that these restrictions were a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Now, you might be thinking, "Okay, so it’s just about a movie?" But it's way more than that. The Supreme Court's decision in this case essentially said that corporations and unions do have the same free speech rights as individuals when it comes to political spending. This opened the floodgates for what we now know as Super PACs and a whole new world of campaign finance.

Why Should You Care for AP Gov?

For your AP Gov exam, understanding Citizens United v. FEC is essential. You need to know:

  • The basic facts of the case
  • The constitutional questions involved (First Amendment, free speech)
  • The Supreme Court’s ruling and its rationale
  • The impact of the decision on campaign finance and elections

The Backstory: BCRA and Citizens United

To really understand Citizens United, you've gotta know about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Passed in 2002, BCRA aimed to regulate campaign finance, particularly the use of “soft money” (unregulated donations to political parties) and “electioneering communications” (political ads that mention a candidate close to an election). The idea was to reduce the influence of big money in politics.

BCRA had a few key provisions:

  1. Soft Money Ban: Prohibited national parties from raising or spending soft money.
  2. Electioneering Communications: Restricted corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to pay for electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Citizens United argued that these restrictions were unconstitutional, specifically the ban on electioneering communications. They believed it violated their First Amendment right to free speech. They weren’t just arguing about the movie about Hillary Clinton; they were challenging the very foundation of BCRA's restrictions on corporate and union spending.

The District Court initially sided with the FEC, upholding the BCRA restrictions. But Citizens United wasn't backing down. They took their case all the way to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a monumental showdown.

The Supreme Court Showdown: Arguments and Decision

The Supreme Court took on the Citizens United case and, boy, did they make waves. The core argument from Citizens United was that BCRA's restrictions on electioneering communications were a form of censorship, violating their First Amendment right to free speech. They argued that corporations and unions should have the same rights as individuals to express their political views, especially when it comes to spending money on political ads.

The FEC, on the other hand, argued that BCRA's restrictions were necessary to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. They claimed that without these restrictions, corporations and unions could use their vast financial resources to unduly influence elections, drowning out the voices of individual citizens.

The Supreme Court's decision, penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a 5-4 ruling in favor of Citizens United. The majority argued that:

  • Corporations and unions have free speech rights: The Court held that corporations and unions are associations of individuals, and therefore, they should have the same First Amendment rights as individuals.
  • Money is speech: The Court reaffirmed its view that spending money on political communication is a form of protected speech. Therefore, restricting spending is akin to restricting speech itself.
  • Independent expenditures do not corrupt: The Court argued that independent expenditures (spending that is not coordinated with a candidate or party) do not lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Therefore, there is no legitimate government interest in restricting such spending.

The Court overturned two previous cases, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003), which had upheld restrictions on corporate and union spending.

Dissenting Opinions

Of course, this decision wasn't unanimous. The dissenting justices, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, argued that the majority's decision was a radical departure from precedent and would have disastrous consequences for American democracy. They argued that:

  • Corporations are not people: Dissenters emphasized that corporations are not human beings and do not have the same rights as individuals. They are artificial entities created by law and should be subject to greater regulation.
  • Money is not speech: Dissenters argued that equating money with speech is a dangerous oversimplification. They believed that unrestricted corporate spending would distort the political process and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens.
  • Corruption is a real threat: Dissenters warned that the decision would open the door to corruption and the appearance of corruption, as corporations and unions could use their vast resources to influence politicians and policies.

The Impact: Super PACs and Campaign Finance Today

So, what happened after Citizens United? Well, the decision led to the rise of Super PACs and a significant increase in the amount of money in politics. Super PACs (officially known as independent expenditure-only committees) can raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and individuals to support or oppose political candidates. The key is that they cannot directly coordinate with the candidates or their campaigns.

The Rise of Super PACs

Before Citizens United, these types of groups were heavily restricted. But after the decision, they exploded onto the scene. Suddenly, wealthy donors and corporations could pour millions of dollars into Super PACs, which would then spend that money on political ads, voter outreach, and other campaign activities.

More Money, More Problems?

The influx of money into politics has had a number of consequences:

  • Increased negative campaigning: Super PACs often engage in negative campaigning, attacking candidates and their records. This can make elections more divisive and discourage voters.
  • Greater influence of wealthy donors: The ability to donate unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs has given wealthy donors and corporations greater influence over politicians and policies.
  • Difficulty regulating campaign finance: The Citizens United decision has made it more difficult to regulate campaign finance, as any attempt to restrict spending is likely to be challenged in court as a violation of free speech.

Examples in Action

You've probably seen the impact of Citizens United in recent elections. Think about all those political ads you see on TV, online, and social media. Many of them are funded by Super PACs. For example, during the 2020 presidential election, Super PACs spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting or opposing candidates. These groups played a significant role in shaping the narrative of the election and influencing voters.

AP Gov Key Takeaways

Okay, let’s wrap this up with the key takeaways you need for your AP Gov exam:

  1. Citizens United v. FEC: A Supreme Court case that significantly altered campaign finance laws.
  2. First Amendment: The case centered on the First Amendment right to free speech.
  3. Corporations and Unions: The Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same free speech rights as individuals when it comes to political spending.
  4. BCRA: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was partially struck down by the decision.
  5. Super PACs: The decision led to the rise of Super PACs and increased money in politics.

Understanding these points will help you tackle any questions about Citizens United on your AP Gov exam. Good luck, you got this!

Practice Questions for AP Gov

To really nail down your understanding, here are a few practice questions:

  1. Explain the central argument in Citizens United v. FEC.
  2. How did the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United impact campaign finance laws in the United States?
  3. What are Super PACs, and how did the Citizens United decision contribute to their rise?
  4. Discuss the dissenting opinions in Citizens United v. FEC. What were the main arguments made by the dissenting justices?
  5. In what ways has the Citizens United decision affected elections and political discourse in the United States?

Answering these questions will not only help you prepare for your AP Gov exam but also give you a deeper understanding of the complex issues surrounding campaign finance and free speech.

Citizens United v. FEC is more than just a court case; it's a reflection of the ongoing debate about the role of money in politics and the balance between free speech and fair elections. By understanding the case and its implications, you'll be well-equipped to engage in informed discussions about the future of American democracy. Keep studying, and you'll be an AP Gov pro in no time! This decision continues to shape the political landscape, and its effects are still being felt today.