Citizens United v FEC: Campaign Finance
✓ Citizens United applied strict scrutiny to corporate speech restrictions and found them unconstitutional -- establishing that the identity of the speaker (person vs. corporation) cannot be the basis for limiting political speech
✓ The Court narrowed "corruption" to mean only quid pro quo bribery, rejecting the idea that unlimited spending creates undue influence -- Stevens' dissent argued this definition ignores how power actually works
✓ The decision overturned Austin (1990) and part of McConnell (2003), raising serious stare decisis concerns -- the law hadn't changed, only the justices had
✓ The central constitutional tension remains unresolved: at what point does regulating money in politics become regulating speech itself, and whose definition of "corruption" should control?
Citizens United v FEC: Campaign Finance
✓ Citizens United applied strict scrutiny to corporate speech restrictions and found them unconstitutional -- establishing that the identity of the speaker (person vs. corporation) cannot be the basis for limiting political speech
✓ The Court narrowed "corruption" to mean only quid pro quo bribery, rejecting the idea that unlimited spending creates undue influence -- Stevens' dissent argued this definition ignores how power actually works
✓ The decision overturned Austin (1990) and part of McConnell (2003), raising serious stare decisis concerns -- the law hadn't changed, only the justices had
✓ The central constitutional tension remains unresolved: at what point does regulating money in politics become regulating speech itself, and whose definition of "corruption" should control?
Citizens United v FEC: Campaign Finance
✓ Citizens United applied strict scrutiny to corporate speech restrictions and found them unconstitutional -- establishing that the identity of the speaker (person vs. corporation) cannot be the basis for limiting political speech
✓ The Court narrowed "corruption" to mean only quid pro quo bribery, rejecting the idea that unlimited spending creates undue influence -- Stevens' dissent argued this definition ignores how power actually works
✓ The decision overturned Austin (1990) and part of McConnell (2003), raising serious stare decisis concerns -- the law hadn't changed, only the justices had
✓ The central constitutional tension remains unresolved: at what point does regulating money in politics become regulating speech itself, and whose definition of "corruption" should control?