What court case of 2010 ruled that corporate political spending is protected free speech?

The landmark Supreme Court case that affirmed corporate political spending as protected free speech was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided in 2010. This pivotal 5-4 ruling declared that laws restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and labor unions violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The Court reasoned that political speech is essential to a democracy, regardless of whether it comes from an individual or a corporation, and that independent expenditures do not inherently lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

The case originated when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, produced a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and sought to air it during the 2008 primary elections. However, provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), also known as McCain-Feingold, prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" close to an election. Citizens United challenged these restrictions, arguing they were an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

The Supreme Court's decision overturned decades of precedent, including parts of *Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce* (1990) and *McConnell v. Federal Election Commission* (2003), which had allowed some restrictions on corporate political spending. The ruling significantly reshaped campaign finance in the United States, leading to the rise of Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) and allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political advertising, as long as they do not directly coordinate with a candidate's campaign. This outcome sparked considerable debate about the influence of money in politics and the balance between free speech rights and the integrity of the electoral process.