Which case allowed corporations to spend unlimited money on independent political expenditures under the First Amendment?

Which case allowed corporations to spend unlimited money on independent political expenditures under the First Amendment?

• A. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• B. McConnell v. FEC (2003)
• C. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
• D. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that the First Amendment protects political speech, including spending to influence elections, but the important distinction is whether the spending is independent of a candidate’s campaign. If the spending is independent, the government cannot place broad limits on how much a speaker—such as a corporation—can spend on political messages. The case that directly allows corporations to spend unlimited money on independent political expenditures is Citizens United v. FEC (2010). It held that corporations and unions may spend unlimited funds on politically connected independent communications, so long as those expenditures are not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. This built on the line of cases recognizing speech as protected and narrowed the ability of the government to restrict independent political spending. McConnell v. FEC (2003) upheld many provisions of campaign-finance law, including some restrictions, so it does not support unlimited corporate spending. Shelby County v. Holder deals with voting rights and is not about campaign finance. Buckley v. Valeo laid important groundwork by recognizing free speech in spending and striking down some expenditure limits, but Citizens United is the case that explicitly permits unlimited corporate independent expenditures.

The key idea is that the First Amendment protects political speech, including spending to influence elections, but the important distinction is whether the spending is independent of a candidate’s campaign. If the spending is independent, the government cannot place broad limits on how much a speaker—such as a corporation—can spend on political messages.

The case that directly allows corporations to spend unlimited money on independent political expenditures is Citizens United v. FEC (2010). It held that corporations and unions may spend unlimited funds on politically connected independent communications, so long as those expenditures are not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. This built on the line of cases recognizing speech as protected and narrowed the ability of the government to restrict independent political spending. McConnell v. FEC (2003) upheld many provisions of campaign-finance law, including some restrictions, so it does not support unlimited corporate spending. Shelby County v. Holder deals with voting rights and is not about campaign finance. Buckley v. Valeo laid important groundwork by recognizing free speech in spending and striking down some expenditure limits, but Citizens United is the case that explicitly permits unlimited corporate independent expenditures.