Final answer:
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court extended First Amendment protections to include unlimited political spending by corporations and unions, equating it with free speech and striking down BCRA restrictions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
In the landmark Supreme Court decision of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, protections of political speech were expanded to include corporations and unions. This controversial ruling in 2010, which came from a 5-4 decision, struck down the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's (BCRA) restrictions on corporate and union spending in federal elections. As a result, these entities can now spend unlimited sums in support of or in opposition to candidates—as long as the spending is independent of the candidates' campaigns. This has caused a significant increase in election spending, and the decision continues to fuel debates on the influence of money in politics and the very nature of free speech.
One critical aspect of the Citizens United case was the application of the First Amendment rights of free speech to corporate entities, equating their campaign expenditures with protected speech. The ruling essentially rejected government-imposed spending limits on corporations and unions, asserting that to restrict this spending would be to violate the fundamental right to free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment.