Why did the Supreme Court consider the facial constitutionality of Section 441(b) in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission?

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court addressed the facial constitutionality of Section 441(b) because it determined that the case could not be resolved on narrower grounds while upholding the corporation's constitutional right to speak.1

The Court concluded that Citizens United’s narrower arguments were not sustainable under a fair reading of the statute. Furthermore, the justices reasoned that there was no principled way to exempt the organization from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) without continuing to contribute to the "substantial, nation-wide chilling effect" caused by the law's prohibitions on corporate expenditures.1

Because the Court viewed Section 441(b) as an onerous ban on political speech, it held that the provision could only be justified if it were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest—a test the Court found the law failed to meet. By ruling on the facial constitutionality of the statute, the Court ultimately invalidated the restrictions on independent corporate and union political expenditures, thereby overruling its previous decisions in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.12