Which Supreme Court decision held that independent expenditures by individuals and groups are protected free speech and cannot be limited, enabling the rise of SuperPACs?

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

Answer: (C)

The main idea is that money spent to influence elections is protected political speech under the First Amendment, as long as it’s independent of a candidate’s campaign. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Court ruled that the government cannot limit independent expenditures by corporations and unions in elections. This struck down restrictions on such spending and allowed groups to raise and spend unlimited sums to advocate for or against candidates, giving rise to SuperPACs. The key point is that the spending must be independent and not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign, but beyond that, there are no limits on how much can be spent.

By contrast, Buckley v. Valeo had already recognized free speech protections for spending but upheld certain limits on contributions and expenditures, rather than allowing unlimited corporate or union spending. The other cases address unrelated issues—student speech in schools and redistricting—so they don’t address campaign finance and the rise of SuperPACs.