Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Roberts
Chief Justice
   
Stevens
Wrote a dissent
   
Scalia
Voted with the majority, wrote a special concurrence

Kennedy
Wrote the majority opinion
   
Thomas
Voted with the majority, wrote a special concurrence
   
Ginsburg
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent

Breyer
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent
   
Alito
Voted with the majority, joined Roberts' concurrence
   
Sotomayor
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens’ dissent 

Facts of the Case:

Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.

In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of restrictions to "electioneering communications."

Citizens United argued that the First Amendment on its face is violated and when applied to The Movie and its related advertisements,  is unconstitutional as applied to the circumstances.

The United States District Court denied the injunction. The amendment on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had already reached that determination.

The District Court also held that The Movie was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton was unfit for office, and thus the First Amendment  was not unconstitutionally applied.

Lastly, it held that the Amendment was  not unconstitutional as applied to the The Movie or its advertisements. The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.

Conclusion:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor.

The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources.

The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.