Citizens United Is Not the Problem - Civic Engagement is
- Elijah Butcher
- Jul 15
- 7 min read
Writer: Elijah Butcher
Editors: Meghan Kane, Kate Murphy, Steven Carredano Mendez
I. Introduction
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission1 is one of the more controversial Supreme Court decisions in recent memory due to its striking down of limits on corporate spending in elections. The Court held that the government may not restrict independent expenditures by corporations and unions that support or oppose candidates in elections, overturning Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.2 While some saw this decision as a major win for the First Amendment, others point out large expenditures made by certain corporations that advance their specific interests. For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and similar groups spent over $9 million in the recent Republican primary in Kentucky where Ed Gallrein defeated incumbent Rep. Thomas Massie. That primary was the most expensive primary in American history, with ad spending at over $32 million.3 However, it is not the job of the government to decide who may advertise to the public, and how much political advertising citizens may and may not see. Citizens United was a return to the “principal pillar of a free government”4 that is freedom of speech.
II.
In order to justify a First Amendment exception, Austin rested on the idea that the law in the case was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest: prevention of “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth… .”5 This rationale later served to justify a federal law that limited independent expenditures – political spending not directly contributed to a political campaign, but that expressly advocated for or against a certain candidate – by corporations and unions. The statute applied even when those expenditures were spent on advertising and media that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. Citizens United rejected Austin’s reasoning, holding that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals and that restricting them is a dangerous violation of the First Amendment.
III.
Those two key pieces of the decision are each worth examining. First, why do corporations enjoy the same free speech rights as individuals? To justify that principle, the Court cites twenty-three cases, turning primarily to First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.6 Bellotti dealt with a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court holding that corporations have rights that warrant Fourteenth Amendment protection. According to the decisions, among those rights are “‘speech and expression under the First Amendment’”7 however, limited to issues that “‘materially affects a corporations business, property or assets… .’”8 The issue of corporate speech became the principal question in Bellotti, and the court did away with the materially affecting requirement. The other twenty-two cases cited include one on signage, fifteen on freedom of the press and broadcast, one on corporations’ Fourteenth Amendment rights, four on prior restraint of theaters, and one on financial restrictions on book publishing.9 Since Citizens United, courts have repeatedly held that companies, corporations, and organizations have substantial free expression protections. See, e.g. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (content-based restrictions on signage),10 Young v. Town of Conway, New Hampshire,11 and Kersten v. City of Mandan (both content-based restrictions on murals).12 In order to hold that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals, it would be necessary to do away with decades of standing precedent on the First Amendment, a body of case law that Austin stands apart from in its principles.13
Furthermore, the court asks, how is one to properly distinguish – or discriminate – between different groups of people in the constitutionality of First Amendment restrictions? “The identity of the speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is protected. Corporations and other associations, like individuals, contribute to the ‘discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas’ that the First Amendment seeks to foster.”14 Such discrimination is a “constitutional wrong… .”15 The lines between for-profit corporations, non-profit thinktanks, and both for- and non-profit media companies are blurred; many media companies are for-profit corporations and many for-profit corporations have non-profit arms. The court points out that under the law at issue, organizations such as the Sierra Club, National Rifle Association, and American Civil Liberties Union would be barred from running ads, publishing books, or creating websites that exhort support for or opposition against any particular candidate.16 What makes corporate speech different from the speech of a book publisher or a for-profit media outlet? When asked in oral argument what may happen if the statute was applied to a book, the Government responded that “‘there would be quite [a]good as-applied challenge’” to which the Court shunned, “this troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.”17 In other words, the government suggested that books would have some sort of unique exception, despite not being enumerated in the First Amendment (or anywhere in the Constitution, for that matter). While dissenting in Austin, Justice Scalia noted that “[the court has] consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”18 There is no constitutionally justifiable reason that corporations, unions, and organizations should have different levels of free speech rights.
IV.
The second piece of the case worth examining is why Austin’s anti-distortion justification falls short of a First Amendment exception. Largely, the court relies on the previously mentioned reasoning. If this doctrine were allowed to stand, no kind of media – books, websites, movies, plays, magazines – supporting a particular candidate before an election would be legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment. “If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted… it would permit the Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form.”19 The law in question in the case had an exception for media companies, even those owned and controlled by corporations.20 As the court notes, this essentially shows the flaw in the antidistortion rationale. Media is definitionally the expression that is most visible and influences the populace the most. With that in mind, an exemption for it questions the point of the rationale in the first place and renders it facially discriminatory. Furthermore, there is little to no evidence that such distortion even occurs. If anything, it prevents smaller corporations and associations from speaking out against the (legal) lobbying by larger corporations with greater ability to do so. The government (and many since the case was decided) has raised the question of whether such advocacy amounts to a political quid pro quo. The Court in Citizens United, Buckley v. Valeo, and McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission rejected that notion.21 Most recently, in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Elections Commission, the Court observed that “prophylaxis upon prophylaxis upon prophylaxis already serve to prevent quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.”22 In fact, the Court notes that no evidence of such corruption was found in the over 100,000-page-long record in McConnell.23 Corruption is covered by bribery laws,24 and even if those are found wanting, “Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy.”25 Restricting speech as a remedy does not end quid pro quo deals (if they exist at all) and reduces the amount of political discourse when it is most pertinent.
As always with First Amendment issues, “the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”26 Justice Louis Brandeis wrote those immortal words, as well as these: “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people… public discussion is a political duty… .”27 Civic engagement is where the nation falls short; corporate speech is a mere scapegoat. A Pew poll found that while 82% of people say it is important to be informed about “voting and election processes,” only 50% consider themselves informed.28 America’s democratic republic functions best when all citizens participate in self-government, express their views, and discern right and wrong. It is not the government’s duty to decide what views the people are allowed to be exposed to, nor to determine right and wrong. However, the people as a whole are often too lazy to participate in politics and too blinded by spiritedness and pride to think critically. This has been true about human nature as long as politics has existed, as Plato wrote in Ancient Athens: “the people… don’t meddle in affairs….”29 And yet, “Whenever they assemble, they constitute the most numerous and most sovereign class in a democracy.”30 The law cannot solve or fix human nature. Possible reasons for Rep. Massie’s primary loss include people allowing themselves to be swayed by television ads – not because of the ads’ existence – and President Trump using his bully pulpit to campaign against him. The people do not need to be coddled by restricting the media they are allowed to consume; rather, they need to be emboldened to seek out the truth and think for themselves.31
V. Conclusion
Citizens United reaffirms the importance of free speech as a fundamental principle of American government. Restricting independent expenditures by any association is no different than restricting freedom of speech and the press. Decades of precedent recognize corporations as having the same free speech rights as individuals. The nation’s political system survives because it holds ideas such as the First Amendment so dear. Rather than be dismayed by how easily influenced human nature is, the citizenry should strive to engage in public discourse and pursue truth in politics.
558 U.S. 310 (2010)
494 U.S. 652 (1990)
Lisa Kashinsky, “Massie’s primary is the most expensive in history. Pro-Israel groups have played a huge part,” Politico, May 17, 2026, https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/17/massie-aipac-record-spending-israel-maga-trump-primary-00925375.
Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol II (Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1840), 285.
494 U.S., at 660.
435 U.S. 765 (1978)
Id.
Id, at 771.
558 U.S., at 342
576 U.S. 155
783 F.Supp.3d 588 (D N.H. 2025)
389 F.Supp.3d 640 (D N.D. 2019)
558 U.S. 348
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1896) (quoting Belotti, 435 U.S., at 783)
558 U.S., at 340
Id, at 337
Id, at 349
494 U.S., at 691
558 U.S., at 349
Id, at 352.
Id, at 360.
NRSC v. FEC, Slip Op. at 20 (2026)
558 U.S., at 360
NRSC v. FEC, Slip Op., at 16 n.4 (2026)
558 U.S., at 361.
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)
Id, at 375.
Luxuan Wang, “Americans say keeping up with key news topics is crucial. But fewer say they’re highly informed themselves,” Pew Research Center, June 5, 2026, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/05/americans-say-keeping-up-with-key-news-topics-is-crucial-but-fewer-say-theyre-highly-informed-themselves/.
Plato, The Republic of Plato, ed. Allan Bloom (Basic Books, 1968), 243.
Ibid.
558 U.S., at 356.
