The constitutional question at the heart of Citizens United: Can the government restrict corporate political spending to prevent corruption?

The majority (Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) said no:

• Political speech is the core of First Amendment protection -- it gets the highest level of judicial scrutiny (strict scrutiny)
• The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the identity of the speaker -- corporations have speech rights just like individuals
• "Corporate personhood" in this context means groups of people organized as corporations don't lose their rights by associating together
• The only government interest strong enough to justify speech restrictions is preventing quid pro quo corruption -- direct exchanges of money for official acts

What the Court overturned:

• Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990): Had allowed bans on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United majority said Austin was wrong because it let the government decide which speakers could participate in elections.
• McConnell v. FEC (2003): Had upheld the McCain-Feingold Act's ban on corporate-funded "electioneering communications" near elections. Citizens United struck down this provision.

The constitutional question at the heart of Citizens United: Can the government restrict corporate political spending to prevent corruption?

The majority (Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) said no:

• Political speech is the core of First Amendment protection -- it gets the highest level of judicial scrutiny (strict scrutiny)
• The First Amendment prohibits restrictions based on the identity of the speaker -- corporations have speech rights just like individuals
• "Corporate personhood" in this context means groups of people organized as corporations don't lose their rights by associating together
• The only government interest strong enough to justify speech restrictions is preventing quid pro quo corruption -- direct exchanges of money for official acts

What the Court overturned:

• Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990): Had allowed bans on corporate independent expenditures. The Citizens United majority said Austin was wrong because it let the government decide which speakers could participate in elections.
• McConnell v. FEC (2003): Had upheld the McCain-Feingold Act's ban on corporate-funded "electioneering communications" near elections. Citizens United struck down this provision.