Citizens United Decision: Free Speech and Campaign Finance
This paper analyzes the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), which struck down key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting corporations and unions from funding electioneering communications. The paper outlines the facts of the case, explains the Court's reasoning, and surveys both supportive and critical responses to the decision. It considers arguments by Senator Mitch McConnell and attorney Floyd Abrams that political speech deserves maximum First Amendment protection regardless of its source, and weighs those arguments against concerns that the ruling effectively drowns out individual voters by allowing unlimited corporate money to flow into elections.
- Background and Overview of the Case: Facts, ruling, and legal context of Citizens United
- How Citizens United Changed First Amendment Law: Two doctrinal shifts: corporate personhood and money as speech
- Arguments in Support of the Decision: McConnell and Abrams defend political speech protections
- Critiques of the Decision and Democratic Concerns: Corporate money drowns out individual voter voices
- Conclusion: Ruling honors constitutional text but betrays its intent
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It presents the legal background clearly and accessibly, defining key terms like "electioneering communications" before applying them to the analysis.
- It fairly represents both sides of the debate — citing McConnell and Abrams in support of the ruling — before pivoting to a well-reasoned critique.
- The conclusion ties the argument together with a pointed observation: that protecting corporate speech may paradoxically undermine the individual political speech the First Amendment was designed to safeguard.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates effective use of counterargument and rebuttal. The writer acknowledges the strongest pro-ruling arguments (political speech deserves maximum protection; BCRA limited both left and right) before explaining why the real-world consequences — disproportionate corporate influence — outweigh those theoretical benefits. This technique strengthens the paper's credibility and shows engagement with opposing viewpoints.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a factual summary of the case and ruling, then explains the two doctrinal shifts the decision introduced. It pivots to supportive commentary from McConnell and Abrams, engages those arguments on their own terms, and then builds toward a sustained critique centered on democratic harm. The conclusion synthesizes the tension between constitutional text and constitutional intent.
Background and Overview of the Case
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court was asked to decide a critical question about campaign finance laws, specifically the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Under § 203 of the BCRA, corporations and unions were prohibited from funding electioneering communications — defined as communications that mentioned a candidate and were broadcast on television, cable, or satellite within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.
The actual controversy in the case involved the nonprofit group Citizens United, which wanted to air a film criticizing Hillary Clinton and to advertise that film during television broadcasts. The Federal Election Commission prohibited this as a violation of § 203. Citizens United sought review of that decision. Eventually, the Supreme Court determined that the provisions of § 203 prohibiting corporations and unions from funding electioneering communications were unconstitutional.
This marked a significant change in U.S. election law, as prior decisions had prohibited direct corporate contributions of the kind at issue in Citizens United. However, the case did not affect the legality of direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties — those remain illegal in federal elections. Moreover, the Court upheld the sections of the BCRA that require the sponsors of election advertisements to disclose who produced the message (Citizens United, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)).
References
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
McConnell, Mitch, and Floyd Abrams. "Pro & Con: Is the Supreme Court's Ruling on Campaigns Bad for Democracy? No: Free Speech, No Matter the Speaker, Is What Our Constitution Protects." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Accessed December 5, 2012.
Wertheimer, Fred. 2010. "Pro & Con: Is the Supreme Court's Ruling on Campaigns Bad for Democracy? Yes: Turning Clock Back 100 Years, Decision Will Corrupt Government." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Accessed December 5, 2012.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.