Campaign Finance Law After Citizens United

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC fundamentally transformed American campaign finance law. By holding that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, and unions, the Court unleashed a wave of outside spending that has reshaped how elections are financed.

Before and After Citizens United

Prior to Citizens United, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds for electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The Citizens United decision struck down this prohibition, holding that it violated the First Amendment rights of corporations. In the wake of the decision, outside groups — particularly 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and super PACs — dramatically increased their political spending.

Super PACs and Dark Money

Citizens United enabled the creation of super PACs — independent expenditure-only committees that can raise and spend unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, and unions, provided they do not coordinate with candidates. Separately, 501(c)(4) organizations can engage in political activity as long as it is not their primary purpose; unlike super PACs, they are not required to publicly disclose their donors, creating what critics call dark money in elections.

Disclosure Requirements

Even post-Citizens United, federal law requires disclosure of significant political spending. Campaigns, party committees, and PACs must disclose contributors over certain thresholds. The ongoing policy debate concerns whether the current disclosure framework adequately informs voters about the ultimate sources of political spending, particularly given the role of intermediary nonprofit organizations that accept large donations without disclosure.