Citizens United and Super PACs
Citizens United and Super PACs
The history of Citizens United begins with its involvement in a Supreme Court case that ultimately reshaped campaign finance laws in the United States. Here's a brief overview:
Formation of Citizens United: Citizens United is a conservative nonprofit organization founded in 1988 by political activist Floyd Brown. The organization has been involved in various political activities, including producing documentaries, sponsoring advertisements, and advocating for conservative causes.
2008 Presidential Election: During the 2008 presidential election campaign, Citizens United produced a documentary film titled "Hillary: The Movie," which was highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was running for the Democratic nomination for president. The film portrayed Clinton in a negative light, highlighting her political career and personal controversies.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) Regulation: The FEC determined that "Hillary: The Movie" constituted a form of electioneering communication and thus fell under the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act. This act prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to finance "electioneering communications" within a certain timeframe before an election.
Legal Challenge: Citizens United challenged the FEC's regulation of its film as a violation of its First Amendment rights to free speech. The case made its way through the federal court system and eventually reached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Case: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in March 2009. The key issue before the Court was whether the restrictions on corporate and union spending on political advertisements violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Supreme Court Decision: In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the government's restriction on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, argued that political spending is a form of protected speech and that corporations and unions have the same rights as individuals to engage in political speech.
Impact: The Citizens United decision effectively overturned key provisions of the BCRA, unleashing a flood of corporate and union spending in American elections. It led to the rise of super PACs and "dark money" groups that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, often without disclosing their donors.
In summary, Citizens United's history is closely tied to its legal challenge against the FEC's regulation of its documentary film "Hillary: The Movie," which culminated in a landmark Supreme Court decision that reshaped campaign finance laws in the United States.
Super PACs
Super PACs, or "independent-expenditure-only committees," are political action committees (PACs) that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates, as long as they do not coordinate their activities with the candidates or their campaigns. Here are some key characteristics of Super PACs:
Independent Expenditures: Super PACs can engage in independent expenditures, which are funds spent on advertisements, mailings, phone banks, and other forms of political communication expressly advocating for the election or defeat of a specific candidate. These expenditures are made without coordinating with the candidate's campaign and are subject to disclosure requirements.
Unlimited Fundraising: Unlike traditional PACs, which are subject to contribution limits from individuals, Super PACs can accept unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other organizations. This allows Super PACs to raise and spend vast sums of money to influence elections.
Disclosure Requirements: Super PACs are required to disclose their donors and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on a regular basis. This transparency allows the public to see who is funding the Super PAC and how the money is being spent on political activities.
Prohibition on Coordination: Super PACs are prohibited from coordinating their activities with political candidates, parties, or their agents. This means that candidates and their campaigns cannot direct or control the spending decisions of Super PACs, although candidates can appear at fundraising events for Super PACs and solicit donations on their behalf.
Impact on Elections: Super PACs have had a significant impact on elections since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010, which allowed corporations and unions to make independent expenditures in support of or opposition to candidates. Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising, allowing them to influence the outcome of elections and shape public opinion on behalf of their donors.
Super PACs play a prominent role in modern American politics, providing a vehicle for individuals, corporations, and interest groups to exert influence and participate in the electoral process through unrestricted political spending. However, their influence and transparency have been the subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny.
Citizens United and Super PACs
The Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision has had a profound influence on the landscape of political spending and the proliferation of Super PACs. Here's how Citizens United has impacted Super PACs:
Unlimited Contributions: Citizens United removed restrictions on independent political spending by corporations, unions, and other organizations, allowing them to contribute unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs. Prior to Citizens United, these entities were limited in their ability to spend money on political advertising and other electioneering activities.
Creation of Super PACs: Citizens United paved the way for the creation of Super PACs, which are independent-expenditure-only committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs can accept contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations without any limits on the amount of money they can receive.
Independent Expenditures: Super PACs are allowed to engage in independent expenditures, which are funds spent on advertisements, mailings, phone banks, and other forms of political communication expressly advocating for the election or defeat of a specific candidate. Citizens United affirmed the right of Super PACs to engage in these independent expenditures without coordination with candidates or their campaigns.
Disclosure Requirements: While Citizens United affirmed the right of corporations and unions to spend money on political speech, it also upheld disclosure requirements for political spending. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on a regular basis, allowing the public to see who is funding their activities and how the money is being spent.
Increased Political Influence: Citizens United has led to a significant increase in the political influence of Super PACs and other independent expenditure groups. These organizations can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, often through extensive advertising campaigns that shape public opinion and sway voter preferences. As a result, Super PACs have become powerful players in modern American politics, wielding considerable influence over electoral outcomes and policymaking.
The Citizens United decision has transformed the landscape of campaign finance and political spending in the United States, giving rise to Super PACs and allowing corporations, unions, and other organizations to exert unprecedented influence over the electoral process through unlimited political spending.