Question

What has been the impact of the Citizens United and Speechnow decisions on political campaign funding?

Answer 1

In Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission), the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the ban on political spending by corporations and unions was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Citizens United has become shorthand for the problems with the state of campaign finance in the U.S.: unlimited corporate spending, lack of disclosure and the outsized influence of a small number of wealthy individuals. And all these things are shaping up to be more important than ever in the 2016 elections.
The case centered on a film that the conservative advocacy group Citizens United had made about Hillary Clinton.
During the 2008 election, the group wanted to run and advertise the film on TV, but a lower court had ruled that they were prohibited from doing so because they were a nonprofit corporation and the film mentions a candidate, thus making it an “electioneering communication.” In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the ban on political spending by corporations and unions was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.
As long as this spending was not coordinated with campaigns, the court said, it would not “give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
So, Citizens United allowed corporations to spend on elections.
But it isn’t the whole story of how we got to where we are today.
Another very important decision followed Citizens United two months later: Speechnow.org v. FEC.
This is the case that led to super PACs as we now know them, striking down limits on contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures, but upholding the requirement that they disclose donors.
The court found that the government has “no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent expenditure group.”
This ruling, combined with the corporate spending allowed by Citizens United, created super PACs: groups that can accept unlimited donations — from individuals or corporations — and spend as much as they want on expressly advocating for candidates, as long as they don’t coordinate with those candidates.
This was unprecedented: While 527 and 501(c)(4) groups had been able to spend unlimited amounts, they were prohibited from explicitly advocating for the election or defeat of specific candidates (using words like “vote for” in ads).
The disclosure requirements, which were supposed to provide some sort of accountability for this spending, haven’t been that successful.
It is true that super PACs do have to disclose their donors, and we do learn something from that about who’s funding their ads.
But, as is often the case, those who want to spend large amounts of money on politics have found ways around these rules, like setting up 501(c)(4)s or LLCs — which mask donors — that then donate to super PACs.
American Bridge Project, for example, is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that doesn’t have to disclose its donors, and they give large amounts to American Bridge super PAC (in the form of “staff expenses”), which does disclose. Jeb Bush’s super PAC Right to Rise has received $100,000 from an LLC with untraceable origins. Sometimes, of course, these groups don’t even bother with the extra step of giving to the super PAC: a 501(c)(4) called Conservative Solutions has spent millions on promoting Marco Rubio without disclosing any of its donors to the public.
If there are any consequences to this, it’s likely they won’t come until after the general election, let alone the primaries.
This election will be only the second presidential election since Citizens United, and the first with no incumbent. By all indications, the 2016 election will be the biggest yet for the unlimited spending by individuals and corporations that Citizens United and Speechnow created: Super PACs have already spent more than $145 million — and it’s only January.

SpeechNOW is a nonprofit organization that was formed by individuals who wished to pool shared resources to make independent expenditures with express advocacy (political campaign advertisements uncoordinated with candidates or parties that contain explicit support for the election or defeat of a particular candidate).
SpeechNOW planned to solicit contributions only from individuals, and accept no contributions from corporations.
Individual plaintiffs involved in the case, however, expressed a desire to contribute more than was allowed under federal law.
SpeechNOW sought an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission about whether they would have to register as a political committee under FECA for receiving contributions from individuals for the purpose of making independent expenditures with express advocacy.
The FEC prepared a draft opinion stating that because of SpeechNOW's interest in influencing federal elections, contribution limits would apply to what SpeechNOW could accept and that it was required to register as a political committee after receiving $1,000 in contributions each year.

The Court of Appeals ruled that contribution limits on what individuals could give, and the amount SpeechNOW could receive, were unconstitutional.
Since SpeechNOW is an independent expenditure-only group, the Court applied the decision in the Citizens United case, which removed contribution limits on independent expenditures, and held that contributions limits to such groups 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, however, that contribution limits on donations directly to candidates are still constitutional.
The Court upheld FECA's disclosure and reporting requirements, which meant that SpeechNOW would have to register as a political committee. The court argued that while such requirements pose some burden on First Amendment rights, the burden is minimal in this case “given the relative simplicity with which SpeechNow intends to operate.”
On February 14, 2008, SpeechNOW and several individual plaintiffs filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging FECA's political committee registration requirements, contribution limits and disclosure requirements.
The District Court denied SpeechNOW's request for a preliminary injunction, "holding that sufficiently important government interests support limits on contributions to political committees, including groups like SpeechNow who intend to spend all of their money on independent expenditures."[1]
The plaintiffs successfully appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which made a ruling in 2010.

SpeechNOW is registered as a 527 group, an IRS-designated nonprofit organization such as a political party, committee, association or fund, operating primarily for the purpose of influencing elections or selecting candidates for political office.
SpeechNOW appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to challenge the disclosure and reporting requirements, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.