Ok sure, 4 things are important
Re-affirmed the important principle of money as being its medium. Essentially: If you spend money to promote or exercise an action, that money is treated as that action itself. And thus its regulated as that action itself. So when you spend money to do something illegal, that money is thus also illegal. Thats why money used in the sale or distribution of illegal narcotics can be seized.
When it comes to speech: A common misconception here is that this decision said that money is speech, it didnt. It simply said, money used in the promotion or exercise of speech is protected as that speech itself. To limit how much money you can spend promoting and exercising speech would be to limit speech itself.
In the end the SC ruled on three major thigs:
Donations to candidates or parties: limited
How much money candidates or parties can spend on elections: Since this is a promotion of speech: unlimited
How much 3rd party advocacy groups could spend: Since this is a promotion of speech: unlimited
Mandatory disclosure and reporting requirements: upheld
The next major thing that affected CU was the
This had a provision in it that said:
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds.
So during the 2008 Election a group called CITIZENS UNITED made a movie called Hillary the Movie and wanted to broadcast it in Iowa before the Iowa primary. This is considered electioneering, and as we know from above"
electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election
This was illegal,
as you can see this is a dangerous power that the government had. Third party groups were not allowed to mention candidates names in political speech. So ofcourse they challenged and eventually the case went to the supreme court. The supreme court ruled
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22][23]
This ruling was frequently characterized as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[24] or as removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[25] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[26]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[27] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[28] The Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22]
The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.[29] The ruling is also often incorrectly characterized as creating the idea that corporations may exercise speech rights, and that "corporations are people." Both notions are also incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations, as associations of people, may exercise many of the rights of natural persons at least since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, and has recognized that corporations are protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment since Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway was decided in 1886.
First Amendment protection for corporate speech has also been recognized since at least Valentine v. Christenson (1942), and in the realm of campaign finance since at least First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978). The question in Citizens United was simply whether the First Amendment protected the rights of corporations to engage in a particular form of corporate speech.[citation needed]
I think that is the best explanation for the decision.
The case alot of people dont talk about but i think was the more important one was
SpeechNow v FEC
SpeechNow and several individual plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act provisions governing political committee registration, contribution limits and disclosure. The plaintiffs contended that the Act unconstitutionally restricts their association guaranteed under the First Amendment. By requiring registration as a political committee and limiting the monetary amount that an individual may contribute to a political committee, SpeechNow and the other plaintiffs asserted that the Act unconstitutionally restricted the individuals' freedom of speech by limiting the amount that an individual can contribute to SpeechNow and thus the amount the organization may spend. SpeechNow also argued that the reporting required of political committees is unconstitutionally burdensome
The court ruled
On March 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in SpeechNow.org. v. FEC that the contribution limits of 2 U.S.C. §441a were unconstitutional as applied to individuals' contributions to SpeechNow. The court also ruled that the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. §§432, 433 and 434(a) and the organizational requirements of 2 U.S.C. §431(4) and §431(8) can be constitutionally applied to SpeechNow.[98] A unanimous nine-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals[99] struck down the federal limits on contributions to federal political committees that make only independent expenditures and do not contribute to candidates or political parties. This type of "independent expenditure committee" is inherently non-corruptive, the Court reasoned, and therefore contributions to such a committee can not be limited based on the government's interest in preventing political corruption
This was affected by CU because
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC, in which the Supreme Court held that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting independent expenditures, the appeals court ruled that "contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption." As a result, the court of appeals held that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent group such as SpeechNow. Contribution limits as applied to SpeechNow "violate the First Amendment by preventing [individuals] from donating to SpeechNow in excess of the limits and by prohibiting SpeechNow from accepting donations in excess of the limits."
The court noted that its holding does not affect direct contributions to candidates, but rather contributions to a group that makes only independent expenditures.[98] The appeals court held that, while disclosure and reporting requirements do impose a burden on First Amendment interests, they "'impose no ceiling on campaign related activities'" and "'do not prevent anyone from speaking.'" Furthermore, the court held that the additional reporting requirements that the Commission would impose on SpeechNow if it were organized as a political committee are minimal, "given the relative simplicity with which SpeechNow intends to operate."