In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) with the aim of regulating campaign finance and reducing the influence of corporations and unions in elections. One of the key provisions of the BCRA was the limitation on the ability of corporations and unions to spend their general treasury funds on election communications. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision that invalidated this provision of the act.
The majority decision of the case, known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, held that the restrictions on corporate and union spending on election communications violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech, and therefore should be allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates.
This decision has had far-reaching implications for campaign finance in the United States. It has led to a significant increase in the amount of money being spent on political campaigns, as corporations and unions are now able to contribute unlimited funds to support their preferred candidates. Critics of the decision argue that it has further entrenched the influence of money in politics and made it more difficult for ordinary citizens to have their voices heard.