In December 2007, a self-described conservative nonprofit organisation called Citizens United was planning to release Hillary: The Movie, a documentary on Hillary Clinton. The film was highly critical of her tenure as First Lady and U.S. senator, as well as the policy positions she advanced during her presidential campaign. Even though the advocacy group and the directors of the film denied it, many critics claimed it was clearly just meant to get people to avoid voting for Clinton, rather than being a proper documentary.
No one could have imagined that this film would lead to a Supreme Court decision that would alter the fate of American democracy. The story of this ruling—and its long-term consequences—demonstrates how U.S. elections are shaped by the disproportionate economic power of the billionaire class. At a moment when democratic institutions are being gradually eroded and norms are under strain, this decision has stood for more than a decade as a structural vulnerability within American democracy.
Back then, a center question was a heart of the discussion surrounding this film, if the movie was released, it would violate the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA, a federal law which stated that corporations or labor unions could not spend money from their general treasury to broadcast anything through the mass media that specifically brought up a candidate running for federal office within 30 days of a primary.
Anticipating that the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, might try to stop the release of their documentary, Citizens United filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The nonprofit organisation claimed BCRA didn’t apply to Hillary: The Movie, because the film wasn’t clearly for or against a candidate and that the Supreme Court decision FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life justified them releasing the film within 30 days of the Democratic primaries. They also argued that portions of BCRA even violated the First Amendment of the Constitution’s protection of free speech.
However, on January 15, 2008, the three-judge U.S. District Court sided with the FEC. The court reasoned the film was simply an advertisement against Clinton and was meant to be strategically shown right before the primaries for this purpose. They cited the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. FEC as justification that the FEC could prevent the showing of this film. Resulting in the film never being screened.
Nevertheless, the story was not over. Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court, a process which took two years. Finally, after hearing arguments from both sides for multiple months, on January 21, 2010, the Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the nonprofit, and reversed the decision taken two years before by the U.S. District Court. They argued that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibited the government from limiting independent political expenditures, or political campaign contributions spent by corporations, labor unions, and other associations, if they are not directly affiliated with the candidate. In other words, the Supreme Court stated that advertisements supporting candidates running for an election without explicitly promoting people to vote for a certain candidate could not be restricted by the government.
The majority of the judges also contended that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals; therefore, corporations and unions also have free speech rights similar to individuals. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The ruling marked a turning point in campaign finance law, allowing multinationals and unions to spend an unlimited amount of money to help indirectly elect or defeat candidates. As a result of the outcome, dark money groups quickly rose to prominence. They include Super PACs, which are independent groups that can raise and spend an unlimited amount of money to support or oppose political candidates, and certain 501(c)(4) groups, associations who do not have to publicly disclose their donors. As a result, many critics argued that it let private entities and wealthy individuals wield disproportionate political power.
These dark money groups have been criticised by candidates from all sides of the political spectrum, with former president Barack Obama saying: “The Supreme Court opened the floodgates for special interests to spend without limit in our elections.” Senator Bernie Sanders also stated: “The Citizens United decision is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of our country. It allows billionaires to buy elections,” and President Donald Trump said: “I think [the] Citizens United [ruling] was a disaster.” These include some of the many American politicians who have criticised the decision and dark money groups. Despite their criticisms, most of these politicians have accepted money from Super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations themselves.
The ruling has completely changed the structure and culture of American elections. It allowed wealthy individuals and multinational corporations to wield a disproportionately large amount of power compared to average Americans, but also to heavily influence elected officials after getting elected. Moreover, some believe the ruling may never be overturned because the president, who is financed by political fundraising networks, has to appoint the Supreme Court justices which have the authority to overturn this decision.
This is now a central part of American democracy and is likely here to stay. Thus, as long as this ruling remains in place, the average American may never have even a fraction of the influence and power over elections as multinational corporations and special interest groups, leaving the economic, political, and social inequality gap to persist.
