Which case is associated with corporate spending on independent political expenditures being protected under the First Amendment in modern times?

Which case is associated with corporate spending on independent political expenditures being protected under the First Amendment in modern times?

• A. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• B. McConnell v. FEC (2003)
• C. Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
• D. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Answer: (C)

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) holds that corporate funding of independent political expenditures cannot be banned under the First Amendment. The Court said that corporations and unions may spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy—like ads supporting or opposing candidates—as long as the spending is truly independent of the candidates and campaigns. This protects corporate speech by allowing general treasury funds to be used for independent political messaging, while still requiring disclosure and prohibiting coordination with campaigns. Reynolds v. Sims deals with voting districts and apportionment, not campaign spending, so it isn’t relevant here.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) holds that corporate funding of independent political expenditures cannot be banned under the First Amendment. The Court said that corporations and unions may spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy—like ads supporting or opposing candidates—as long as the spending is truly independent of the candidates and campaigns. This protects corporate speech by allowing general treasury funds to be used for independent political messaging, while still requiring disclosure and prohibiting coordination with campaigns. Reynolds v. Sims deals with voting districts and apportionment, not campaign spending, so it isn’t relevant here.