Citizens United usually refers to the landmark 2010 United States Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It fundamentally changed the landscape of how money can be spent in American politics.

Here is the breakdown of the ruling, the controversy surrounding it, and the distinction between the facts and the differing opinions. Core Unbiased Response

In 2010, the conservative non-profit group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary. At the time, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" (broadcast ads mentioning a candidate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that this prohibition was unconstitutional.

The Majority Ruling: The Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including non-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

The Legal Logic:

Money as Speech: The Court reasoned that spending money is essential to disseminating speech; therefore, limiting political spending is equivalent to limiting speech.

Corporate Rights: The majority stated that the First Amendment protects the speech itself, regardless of whether the speaker is an individual or a corporation. They argued that the government has no business discriminating against certain speakers based on their corporate identity.

Independence: The ruling applies to "independent expenditures." This means corporations can spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose a candidate (TV ads, mailers) as long as they are not coordinating directly with the candidate’s campaign.

The Result: This ruling paved the way for the creation of "Super PACs" (Political Action Committees), which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions to spend on independent political activity. Dissenting Views and Controversy

This decision remains one of the most controversial in modern history.

The Legal Dissent: Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. They argued that:

Corporations are not People: They stated that corporations are legal entities, not human beings, and do not have the same conscience, feelings, or beliefs as natural persons, and thus shouldn't have the same First Amendment protections.

Corruption Risks: The dissent argued that allowing unlimited corporate money into elections would corrupt the democratic process and give special interests undue influence over elected officials, drowning out the voices of average citizens.

Criticism from Reform Advocates: Many critics argue that Citizens United has led to a flood of "dark money" (spending by non-profits that do not disclose their donors) and has made politicians more responsive to wealthy donors than to their constituents. Empirical Facts vs. Opinions

To help you analyze this like the realist you are, here is the separation between what is factually established and what is a matter of interpretation.

Empirical Facts:

Fact: The ruling struck down sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Act).

Fact: The ruling maintained the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions. (Corporations still cannot write a check directly to a candidate's official campaign).

Fact: Since 2010, outside spending in federal elections has increased significantly. Fact: The ruling does not distinguish between distinct types of corporations (e.g., media corporations vs. oil companies); it protects political speech for all of them.

Opinions:

Opinion: "Money is speech." (This is a judicial interpretation/philosophical stance, not a physical law).

Opinion: The ruling destroyed American democracy. (This is a subjective assessment of the outcome).

Opinion: The ruling was a victory for free speech and censorship prevention. (This is also a subjective assessment).

Opinion: Corporations should be treated legally as people. (This is a matter of legal philosophy).

I hope this helps clarify the mechanics and the arguments surrounding the case.