In the McCain-Feingold law, the part that denied corporations and labor unions the right to run ads violated free speech under the Constitution. Which case struck this down?

In the McCain-Feingold law, the part that denied corporations and labor unions the right to run ads violated free speech under the Constitution. Which case struck this down?

• A. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
• B. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
• C. New York Times v. Sullivan
• D. Miller v. California

Answer: (B)

The underlying idea is that political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that protection extends to corporations and unions when they spend money to influence elections. McCain-Feingold restricted corporate and union spending on political advertising, arguing that such spending could corrupt or manipulate the political process. The case that ultimately struck down those specific restrictions on independent corporate and union ads is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision, the Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in elections cannot be limited by the government, because doing so would violate the First Amendment. The ruling clarifies that while direct contributions to campaigns or parties can be restricted in other ways, independent political spending by corporations and unions is a form of protected speech, and the government cannot silence that speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. This marked a shift from earlier upholding of campaign finance limits to a stance that allows unlimited independent spending, as long as it is not coordinated with a candidate. By contrast, the other cases address different issues: New York Times v. Sullivan deals with libel, Miller v. California with obscenity, and McConnell v. FEC upheld aspects of campaign finance restrictions rather than striking them down.

The underlying idea is that political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that protection extends to corporations and unions when they spend money to influence elections. McCain-Feingold restricted corporate and union spending on political advertising, arguing that such spending could corrupt or manipulate the political process. The case that ultimately struck down those specific restrictions on independent corporate and union ads is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision, the Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in elections cannot be limited by the government, because doing so would violate the First Amendment. The ruling clarifies that while direct contributions to campaigns or parties can be restricted in other ways, independent political spending by corporations and unions is a form of protected speech, and the government cannot silence that speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. This marked a shift from earlier upholding of campaign finance limits to a stance that allows unlimited independent spending, as long as it is not coordinated with a candidate. By contrast, the other cases address different issues: New York Times v. Sullivan deals with libel, Miller v. California with obscenity, and McConnell v. FEC upheld aspects of campaign finance restrictions rather than striking them down.