Citizens United and Corporate Speech

The story of Citizens United began in late 2007, as leading members of the Republican and Democratic parties were preparing for the 2008 presidential primaries. Democrats expected a three-way contest in their party between Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Senator (and former first lady) Hillary Clinton of New York, and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina. In anticipation of the primary season, a nonprofit corporation named Citizens United made a film, Hillary: The Movie, which attacked Senator Clinton's character, activities in Washington, and fitness for the presidency. People interviewed in the film described Clinton as "steeped in controversy [and] steeped in sleaze," "deceitful," "ruthless," "vindictive," "venal," "sneaky," and "intolerant."
Citizens United released Hillary: The Movie in cinemas and on DVD, but also wished to show the film via on-demand video. Although the group sought to promote the on-demand release with television commercials, it worried that both the on-demand release and the associated advertisements could be deemed illegal—a violation of federal election law that banned corporations and labor unions from using internal treasury funds to assist with the election or defeat of candidates for certain federal offices.
Citizens United pled in District Court that the laws restricting corporate speech violated the constitution. Although the District Court disagreed, the U.S. Supreme Court soon took up the case and, on January 21, 2010, ruled decisively in Citizen United's favor. In a 5-4 decision, the Court declared that limiting corporations' independent expenditures on election speech was unconstitutional. By doing so, the Court overturned two of its own precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). The majority opinion in Citizens United, penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, announced that corporations had First Amendment rights, and that existing federal law improperly infringed on these rights. The four justices in the minority joined in a spirited dissent, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, which expressed deep concern over the influence of corporate spending on elections.