Damage to Democracy: The Dangers of Citizens United v. FEC
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that there could be no law created to limit corporate expenditures made toward a candidate for election [1]. Since the Court’s decision, spending on elections by corporations and political actions committees (PACs) has skyrocketed, with billions being spent in recent election years [2]. This decision by the Court greatly expanded the idea of “corporate personhood,” a term used to indicate that corporations are separate from the individuals that run them and are able to exercise rights an individual would have when conducting business [3]. The Court’s decision to grant corporations protections under the First Amendment presents a very dangerous reality where candidates can literally be bought and paid for by special interest groups. Corporations are in fact, not people, and should not be entitled to all the rights of American citizens, particularly in instances where the granting of certain rights to corporations undermines American democracy and goes far beyond the beliefs of the framers of the United States Constitution.
First of all, it is important to understand the history of corporate personhood to truly understand what rights corporations do or do not need in order to operate. The first case that concerned something that could be considered as corporate personhood was Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819 [4]. In this case, the Court ruled that Dartmouth College, a corporation, was a legal entity entitled to the same legal protections with respect to contracts under the contract clause as two private individuals would be entitled [5]. A further development in the rights of corporations came in 1906 in the case, Hale v. Henkel where the Court granted corporations only limited rights with respect to the Fourth Amendment, ruling that corporate records could be subpoenaed by a Grand Jury without being an unreasonable search and seizure [6]. Additionally, the court ruled that corporations themselves did not have the right against self-incrimination provided to individuals under the Fifth Amendment, meaning that company officials could not refuse if asked to produce corporate documents in court. However, the court did rule that individuals within the company were still protected under the Fifth Amendment if giving personal testimony [7]. Hale v. Henkel was an important case in the development of the idea of corporate personhood as it showed that corporations are not entitled to all the rights that individuals enjoy. Another important update in the saga of corporate personhood came in 1936 with the Court’s decision in Grosjean v. American Press Co. which granted corporations the first amendment right to free speech and if they were operating as organizations of the press and ensured that freedom of the press applied to state laws in addition to federal law [8]. This case granted broad rights to freedom of expression to corporations under a certain context. At this point, the court had granted corporations broad rights from the Constitution to help them conduct their business, but also had placed certain restrictions on what corporate personhood was. From 1936, the rights that comprised corporate personhood should not have been expanded, but unfortunately that was not the case.
While corporations require some rights in order to operate, they do not deserve to be fully equated with individuals and receive the full rights that individuals enjoy, and their rights should not have been expanded beyond Grosjean v. American Press Co. in 1936. The Supreme Court however, disagreed, and in 2010 the court decided in Citizens United v. FEC that limiting political donations by corporations violated the First Amendment [9]. In his partial dissent to Citizens United v. FEC, Justice John Paul Stevens, presented a clear and convincing argument as to why corporations should not be granted the same rights as individuals with respect to free speech. First, Stevens argued that corporations are entities created specifically for economic purposes and are artificial entities, and therefore, they should not be granted the same rights as individuals. Stevens’ argument provides us with strong reasoning as to why corporations should not be considered fully equal in free speech rights because as artificial entities, corporations should only be entitled to the rights which are essential for their functioning, which had effectively all been granted to them in the decisions up to and including Grosjean. Additionally, Stevens argued that since corporations are created specifically for achieving profits, surely any political donations they make would only be in order to further their own economic mission and not to improve the overall wellbeing of the country or the political dialogue going on within [10]. He further contended that since corporations do not exercise many of the rights that American citizens do, such as voting or holding elected office, they should not be allowed to be held in equal regard to American citizens with respect to their Constitutional rights. Individual citizens are granted rights to freedom of expression so that they may contribute to America’s democratic processes by debating with others, voting for their candidate and the like. Since corporations do not exercise these civic activities, they are fundamentally different from American citizens and therefore, do not qualify for full protections of freedom of expression under the First Amendment with respect to political speech [11]. Without these crucial aspects of identity, the entities which are corporations should not be allowed to exercise full rights of freedom of speech with respect to their political donations. It should be noted that this argument does not undermine the freedom of expression held by the Court in Grosjean v. American Press Co. because that decision pertained specifically to freedom of speech for institutions of the press, a specified protection under the First Amendment [12]. Finally, corporations were never thought of by the framers of the Constitution as individual entities, and therefore the interpretation of the Constitution given by the majority in Citizens United v. FEC is simply false [13][14]. The writers of the United States Constitution created the Bill of Rights in order to protect individual liberties of the people from an overbearing government, not to protect the rights of corporations. No where in the Constitution are the rights of artificial entities and therefore they should not be entitled to the same and equal rights as American citizens. Corporations should only be granted those rights which are deemed essential to their business functioning. Overall, the decision of the Court in Citizens United v. FEC brought corporations on the level of individuals such that it be assumed that they enjoy all the first amendment protections that individuals do. This should not be the case, as corporations’ rights to free expression are not inherent as they do not participate in the political process; rather, their rights are derivative and they should only be granted those rights which are necessary to their functioning in the business space.
However, when evaluating any court case, it is always important to take into consideration the opinion of the opposing side. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s main argument was based on the importance of protecting political speech, regardless of the speaker. Justice Kennedy argued that it was unconstitutional for the government to restrict the individual political donations of corporations as he believed that the First Amendment should protect speech regardless of the identity of the speaker [15]. Furthermore, Kennedy expressed valid concerns over government censorship of political speech. Finally, Kennedy argued that independent expenditures by corporations to organizations such as Political Action Committees (PACs), the method for which candidates donate large amounts to politicians indirectly, does not cause corruption [16]. This, however, is where Kennedy went wrong; large corporate donations to PACs can absolutely cause corruption, as corporations often donate large amounts of money to these organizations with the expectation of favor from the candidate if they go on to win. This is the very definition of corruption as powerful entities engage in dishonest behavior, although thanks to Citizens United v. FEC this behavior is not illegal [17]. Kennedy’s grounds for this argument come from the case Buckley v. Valeo in which the Court ruled that the government could restrict certain aspects of speech, particularly with respect to contributions [18]. Kennedy argues that the fact that corporations may have influence over elected officials, does not automatically lead to corruption. While theoretically it may be true that influence does not necessarily equate to corruption, the appearance has been given to the American public that most corporations will indeed engage in activities that qualify in corruption. In the 2020 presidential election cycle alone, over $1.6 Billion in dark money donations – funds spent to influence politics often through PACs – were made [19]. Despite fair arguments over government censorship and freedom of expression, the decision in Citizens United v. FEC effectively legalized unlimited indirect bribery of candidates for public office by entities which have to care for the general wellbeing of the citizens of the United States.
As described previously, the legalized unlimited indirect bribery of prospective officials undermines democracy by allowing several rich for-profit organizations to control many actions of those politicians should they win, thereby undermining American democracy. Since the Citizens United decision, spending by Super PACs, and other outside organizations has skyrocketed in addition to various other instances of corporate opaqueness with respect to election donations [20]. Immense spending by corporations silences the voices of everyday Americans citizens as the measly $5 decision an individual may make directly to a candidate does not compare with a $20 million PAC ‘donation’ from a large corporation. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Steven presents the majority’s decision as one that will be very damaging to the American political system saying that “a democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold” [21]. Stevens was absolutely right as in recent years, more and more Americans are losing confidence in the government, in part due to the immense amount of influence from large corporations. Without a limit to political spending by corporations, however indirect, American democracy is threatened as politicians are compelled to listen to the corporations which essentially pay for their campaigns rather than the voters which actually put them in office.
While corporations are entitled to a certain degree of “corporate personhood,” they cannot be allowed to have full rights equivalent to those of individuals. Particularly with respect to political donations, as the excessive amount of political spending made possible by the decision in Citizens United v. FEC restricts American democracy and must be reversed. Corporations pour money into PACs, silencing the voices of everyday Americans and undermining the American democratic system. Not only is this morally incorrect, but it undermines the legal foundations on which America was built as the framers of the United States Constitution and Supreme Court justices who ruled on issues of corporate personhood in decades past would be appalled at the amount of power that the 2010 Court gave corporations under the guise of Constitutional protection. It is paramount that Citizens United v. FEC be overturned and the country be returned to the era of limited corporate personhood, which was generally fully established after Grosjean v. American Press Co. and allowed corporations limited rights so that they might conduct business. There is no need for corporations to be able to buy out American politicians, and in order to begin restoring American confidence in the government, the practices allowed in Citizens United v. FEC must be outlawed.
[1] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
[2] “Undoing Citizens United and Reining In Super PACs,” Center for American Progress, September 15, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/undoing-citizens-united-and-reining-in-super-pacs/.
[3] “Corporate Personhood: What It Means and How It Has Evolved,” Purdue Global Law School, accessed October 11, 2025, https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/corporate-personhood.
[4] Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819).
[5] Art. I, §10, cl. 1.
[6] Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233 (1936).
[9] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
[10] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting in part).
[11] Ibid.
[12] U.S. Const. amend. I
[13] Geoffrey R. Stone, “Corporations Are Not ‘We the People,’” ProMarket, November 21, 2022, https://www.promarket.org/2022/11/21/corporations-are-not-we-the-people/.
[14] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] “CORRUPTION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster,” accessed October 11, 2025, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption.
[18] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
[19] Kenneth P. Vogel and Shane Goldmacher, “Democrats Decried Dark Money. Then They Won With It in 2020.,” U.S., The New York Times, January 29, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html.
[20] “How Does the Citizens United Decision Still Affect Us in 2025?,” Campaign Legal Center, accessed October 11, 2025, https://campaignlegal.org/update/how-does-citizens-united-decision-still-affect-us-2025.
[21] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting in part).