Which 2010 Supreme Court decision held that independent expenditures are protected free speech and cannot be limited, leading to the rise of SuperPACs?

• A. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• B. Shaw v. Reno (1993)
• C. Tinker v. De Moines School District
• D. Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that spending money to advocate for or against a candidate can be treated as a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. In the 2010 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. This means these groups can spend unlimited sums on political communications as long as they operate independently of any candidate’s campaign. That change opened the door for SuperPACs, which can raise and spend vast amounts of money to influence elections without coordinating with candidates, while still having to report their contributions.

To see how this fits with the other cases: Buckley v. Valeo (1976) did recognize political spending as speech but upheld certain spending limits and did not open the door to unlimited independent corporate expenditures in the way Citizens United did. Shaw v. Reno (1993) focused on racial gerrymandering in district drawing, not campaign spending. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) dealt with student free speech in schools, not campaign finance.