Which case held that corporate and union spending on elections is protected speech under the First Amendment?

• A. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• B. FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2010)
• C. McConnell v. FEC (2003)
• D. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Answer: (D)

Political speech includes how money is spent to influence elections, and the First Amendment protects that kind of expression even when the speaker is a corporation or a union. In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court held that corporate and union spending on elections is protected speech, so laws banning or severely restricting independent expenditures by these entities cannot stand. The ruling emphasizes that spending to advocate for or against a candidate is a form of protected communication, and the government may not suppress it simply because the speaker is a corporate or union entity. However, direct contributions to candidates remain restricted, so the decision focuses on independent expenditures rather than prohibiting all corporate or union political activity.

To see how this fits with earlier cases: Buckley v. Valeo laid the groundwork by recognizing spending as speech but allowing contribution and expenditure regulations in different ways, and McConnell v. FEC upheld many of those campaign-finance restrictions. Wisconsin Right to Life had limited restrictions on certain types of corporate political ads, which Citizens United then further loosened by extending protection to independent corporate spending across the board.