William & Mary Law Review


Within hours of its announcement, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC came under attack from progressive groups. Among these groups were some of America’s largest laborunions—even though the decision applies equally to unions and for profit corporations. The reason is clear: there exist both practical andstructural impediments that will prevent unions from benefittingfrom Citizens United to the same extent as corporations. Therefore,Citizens United stands to unleash a torrent of corporate electioneering that could drown out the countervailing voice of organized labor.

This Article, however, takes a broader view of Citizens United to explore a possible silver lining for labor. It posits that, in articulating a wide-ranging vision of associations’ free speech rights, the Court undermined the intellectual basis of a lengthy string of cases that has limited the First Amendment protection applicable to labor related speech in other contexts, such as picketing, boycotting, and striking. Additionally, by discounting the First Amendment interestsof dissenting shareholders, Citizens United calls into question the validity of restrictions on unions’ use of lawfully collected dues and fees for political speech and new organizing. Accordingly, this Article concludes that Citizens United has the potential to impact significantly unions’ First Amendment rights outside of the campaign finance arena.