How did the majority opinion interpret the First Amendment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, interpreted the First Amendment as protecting the right of corporations and unions to engage in independent political speech.12

The court held that laws banning these entities from using general treasury funds for independent "electioneering communications" constituted an unconstitutional burden on speech. Key aspects of this interpretation included:12

• Rejection of Identity-Based Restrictions: The majority argued that the government cannot assign different free-speech rights based on a speaker's identity as a corporation or an individual.2
• Marketplace of Ideas: The court maintained that suppressing corporate political speech interferes with the "marketplace of ideas" by preventing viewpoints from reaching the public.2
• Narrow Tailoring: Because the ban was viewed as an onerous restriction on political speech, it required a compelling state interest. The court found that preventing "ingratiation and access" did not constitute a compelling interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption.2
• Corporate Democracy: The court concluded that shareholder interests are adequately protected by the institutions of "corporate democracy," rendering government-imposed limits on corporate political spending unnecessary.2