This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Theodore B. Olson, robust debate about candidates for elective office is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, yet the government has prohibited that dialogue when practiced by unions or corporations.
According to Petitioner, participation in the political process is the First Amendment's most fundamental guarantee, but that freedom is being smothered by a complicated, expensive, and incomprehensible regulatory regime.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Ginsburg asked whether there is any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance.
Justice Scalia asked whether Congress could prevent foreign individuals from funding speech in United States elections.
Justice Stevens asked whether the First Amendment permits any distinction between corporate speakers and individual speakers.
What each side argues
Theodore B. Olson (Petitioner Counsel)
According to Theodore B. Olson, robust debate about candidates for elective office is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment, yet the government has prohibited that dialogue when practiced by unions or corporations.
Mr. Olson (Petitioner Counsel)
According to Mr. Olson, the breadth of the definition of "person" includes corporations, and corporations were parties in the case.
According to Olson, the government has an overbroad statute that covers every corporation irrespective of stockholder views, size, or type, without a compelling justification.
Petitioner (Citizens United)
According to Petitioner (Citizens United), our position is that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act would not prohibit the film because those are not covered media.
General Kagan (Petitioner Counsel)
According to General Kagan, the issue has a long history.
NRA (Petitioner Counsel)
According to NRA, the case is argued by the NRA.
Stewart (Petitioner Counsel)
According to Stewart, the lead opinion in Wisconsin Right to Life defined "functional equivalent of express advocacy" as an ad that can only be interpreted as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.
What happened at oral argument
The case was submitted for oral argument before the Supreme Court at 10:09 a.m.
The case was submitted after oral argument.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- abc5f194ca2cd5b2f575-r1-94f4f182fc37801d.pdforal argument transcript
- c2d07a2c4d144314cd36-r1-bc49fcc528e1f486.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.