In Citizens United v. FEC, what did the Court decide about independent expenditures?

• A. Independent expenditures are protected as free speech under the First Amendment and cannot be limited.
• B. Independent expenditures are restricted to prevent corruption.
• C. Only individuals may make independent expenditures; corporations cannot.
• D. The decision addressed only direct contributions to candidates.

Answer: (A)

Political spending as a form of speech is the core idea being tested. Citizens United holds that spending money to advocate for or against a political candidate is protected free speech under the First Amendment, so laws cannot bar or cap independent expenditures by corporations or unions simply to limit influence. The key distinction is independent expenditures: money spent on political communications that is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. Because it’s treated as speech, such spending cannot be limited, even for groups like corporations or unions, though direct contributions to candidates remain subject to other limits and rules.

This is why the answer emphasizes protection of independent expenditures as First Amendment speech. The other options don’t fit the ruling: the decision did not say independent expenditures are restricted to prevent corruption; it allowed corporate and union spending on independent political messages; it did not say only individuals may spend on these expenditures. It also isn’t accurate to say the decision addressed only direct contributions to candidates.