Source: https://www.subscriptlaw.com/blog/citizens-united-2010
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 09:01:39+00:00

Document:
Remember when the Supreme Court declared that corporations get First Amendment protections?
Election law is a hot topic this term as the Court considers resolving two political gerrymandering cases. While Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone are about political influence in elections, Citizens United was about money influence in elections.
Another topic getting a lot of hits this term is the First Amendment. The Justices will be outlining the boundaries of free speech in several different cases. Citizens United determined who can claim First Amendment protections, while four cases of this term (Masterpiece Cakeshop, NIFLA v. Becerra, MVA v. Mansky, and Janus v. AFSCME) will decide what types of expression deserve strong protection. Of course, that list doesn't even include the Travel Ban Case (Trump v. Hawaii), which considers the First Amendment's separation-of-church-and-state requirement (similar to a religious discrimination argument).
Citizens United was a nonprofit corporation that funded a movie trashing Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to a primary election. Federal law at the time would have stood in Citizens United's way because the law (the BCRA) prohibited corporations from funding "electioneering communications." A corporation (including a nonprofit) could not fund - at least not outside of a PAC - any broadcast, cable or satellite communications that refer to a candidate for federal office. The Federal Election Commission had further qualified that any communication - like a movie - that would be publicly distributed to a bunch of people (50,000+ in the relevant state) would be included in the ban.
Citizens United sued to keep the government from banning the movie. The litigation was an offensive action on the part of the nonprofit (i.e. it sought a declaratory judgment). Among its arguments was the Big One - that a corporation could claim First Amendment rights just like a person could. If that's the case, Citizens United claimed, the BCRA's ban on electioneering communications was a violation of Free Speech.
The BCRA ban was indeed a ban on corporate speech.
The Justices started by clarifying that yes, the BCRA was a ban on corporate speech. It said of course, the purpose of the ban was to limit the amount of speech that was out there. That came by virtue of the ban's limitation on spending by corporations. Spending was considered intrinsically instrumental to speech.
What about the PACs? It's true that a corporation could avoid the ban by setting up a PAC, a Political Action Committee, to fund its communications. However, the Justices reasoned that a PAC was too burdensome. First a corporation would have to set it up (not a trivial task), and then it would have to maintain it with tons of regulatory and filing requirements, and furthermore, PACs can't accept money from everyone; they are limited in that regard. So a PAC wouldn't do it. Corporate speech was still burdened.
[T]he American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech.
Corporate speech is as good as personal speech.
Based on the importance of political speech, the Justices decided to apply a very harsh standard (a high degree of skepticism) to reviewing any limitation on it (like the BCRA ban). In other words, the Justices decided to apply Strict Scrutiny.
The majority, thus, was very skeptical of any regulation that would try to limit speech based on the identity or the viewpoint of the speaker. And when it thought about identity, it made no distinction between corporate identity and natural identity (real personhood).
The majority reviewed whether corporations enjoyed the constitutional privileges of natural persons in past cases. It turns out, the Court noted, corporations often did. First, there is a line of cases starting in the 1800s that allowed corporations to take advantage of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" guarantee. And more recently, regarding the First Amendment, yes: the Supreme Court had decided in 1978 (First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti) that corporations are entitled to Free Speech.
That would basically do it for the Justices.
But can't some laws pass Strict Scrutiny?
Ah, in fact they can. Even when a court decides to look very skeptically at a law/regulation, the law could still pass muster. In order to do so, the government would have to prove it had a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The Supreme Court in Austin declared that the government had a compelling interest that justified its ban. Keeping corporate money out of politics, it said, was an important way to keep money from distorting the political process. Furthermore, the ban's restriction was narrowly tailored to achieve this anti-distortion rationale.
But the Supreme Court in Citizens United decided to overrule Austin. It said that the anti-distortion rationale wasn't good enough. The Court said that compared to burdening free speech, keeping money out of politics wasn't important enough. It noted that everyone (consider wealthy individuals) use money to further their speech. And corporations shouldn't be singled out as different, just because they are very different than people.
"Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters."
"The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
This issue continues to divide the country today.
Does the latest version of Trump's travel ban violate federal law or the Constitution?
How will Maryland Republicans fare with a First Amendment challenge to political gerrymandering?
A California law requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to tell women that abortions are available. NIFLA argues the law violates the centers' First Amendment rights.
Can Minnesota ban political apparel on clothes around polling places? MVA argues the law violates the First Amendment.
Can the police get in trouble for retaliatory arrest if they had probable cause to arrest anyway?
Can government employees be required to pay union collective bargaining fees?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.