Which case held that corporate funding of independent political expenditures is protected speech under the First Amendment?

• A. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
• B. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• C. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
• D. NAACP v. Alabama (1958)

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is that the First Amendment protects political speech, even when a corporation funds the message, as long as the spending is independent of a candidate’s campaign. In the case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court held that corporate funding of independent political expenditures is protected speech and cannot be banned. The justices reasoned that restricting corporate or union spending on political communications would suppress viewpoint diversity and democratic debate, and that money spent to advocate ideas communicates information just like individual speech. They allowed unlimited spending on independent political advertising by corporations and unions, while still permitting government rules that address corruption or the appearance of improper influence and that require disclosure. This decision marked a shift away from earlier limits on corporate spending within elections, though it did not permit direct contributions to candidates; those remain governed by other laws. This ruling is the one that established that corporate funding of independent political expenditures is protected speech.