Which Supreme Court ruling eliminated campaign spending limits on corporations, allowing unlimited money into Independent Expenditure-Only Committees?

Which Supreme Court ruling eliminated campaign spending limits on corporations, allowing unlimited money into Independent Expenditure-Only Committees?

• A. Buckley v. Valeo
• B. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
• C. Shelby County v. Holder
• D. McConnell v. FEC

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is how First Amendment protections apply to corporate political spending in elections. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that restricting a corporation’s spending on independent political advocacy violates free speech rights, so there can be no limits on what corporations can spend on independent expenditures, as long as they do not coordinate with a candidate’s campaign. This opened the door for unlimited money to flow into Independent Expenditure-Only Committees, often called Super PACs, which can fund ads and other political messaging supporting or opposing candidates without directly contributing to those candidates. The ruling does not allow direct corporate contributions to candidates, and rules about coordination and disclosure still govern how these funds are used. Other cases cited in the options addressed different aspects of campaign finance or different legal issues, and do not establish the elimination of corporate spending limits on independent expenditures.

The idea being tested is how First Amendment protections apply to corporate political spending in elections. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that restricting a corporation’s spending on independent political advocacy violates free speech rights, so there can be no limits on what corporations can spend on independent expenditures, as long as they do not coordinate with a candidate’s campaign. This opened the door for unlimited money to flow into Independent Expenditure-Only Committees, often called Super PACs, which can fund ads and other political messaging supporting or opposing candidates without directly contributing to those candidates. The ruling does not allow direct corporate contributions to candidates, and rules about coordination and disclosure still govern how these funds are used. Other cases cited in the options addressed different aspects of campaign finance or different legal issues, and do not establish the elimination of corporate spending limits on independent expenditures.