Legal Alert: Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

On January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (No. 08-205), which significantly changes the legal landscape in political spending by corporations (and unions).  The Court struck down a law prohibiting corporations (and unions) from using their general treasury funds to pay for advertisements, made separately from a political candidate's campaign, supporting or opposing a political candidate.  The Court, by a 5-4 margin, overruled two prior Supreme Court holdings and also ruled that part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the "McCain-Feingold Act") is unconstitutional.  Justice Stevens wrote a vigorous and lengthy (90+ page) dissent, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor.

The case has attracted a considerable amount of media attention.  Political and legal commentators from across the spectrum have offered their predictions as to how this ruling will affect the electoral process and the role of corporations in the political process.  In this client advisory, we briefly summarize the facts and primary legal issues presented in the case, and we describe the significant ways in which the legal landscape has been changed by the Court's decision. 

Please click here to view the article in its entirety.

This publication, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by KMK or its attorneys.  Additionally, the foregoing discussion does not constitute tax advice.  Any discussion of tax matters contained in this publication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter.