There has been much controversy and contentious debate resulting from the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned corporate political expenditure bans in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , 130 S.Ct. 876 ( 2010). Critics have labeled Citizens United a radical, destructive decision that will lead to corporations using their massive war chests to control political campaigns and intimidate federal candidates and officeholders. Supporters defend the Court’s ruling as reaffirming the importance of the First Amendment right to engage in political speech, and they suggest that it will simply lead to more political speech, which is beneficial to the political system as a whole. The disagreement over Citizens United was perhaps best highlighted during President Obama’s State of the Union Address when he criticized the decision and Justice Alito, seated a few feet away, could be seen shaking his head in disagreement and apparently mouthing the words “not true.”
In the wake of Citizens United , there was concern about what impact it would have in New Jersey, especially on the state’s pay-to-play laws. Despite initial fears that the decision would disrupt those pay-to-play laws, it appears that Citizens United will not have any impact on them. To understand why Citizens United will not transform New Jersey’s campaign finance system, it is first necessary to examine what the Supreme Court did — and did not do — in Citizens United.
