Although the F.E.C. v. Wisconsin Right to Life decision did not invalidate major pieces of federal campaign finance legislation, it revealed the opinions of particular Justices of the Supreme Court on the scope of the regulation of money in the electoral process. With five conservatives and four liberals, it seemed just a matter of time before the next challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act regulations would enter the Court's docket. The discussion on the proper scope of expenditure limits or disclosure procedures was also present during legislative debates, but after BCRA the majority of Congressmen were reluctant to propose new legislation. Therefore, any changes to the meaning of campaign finance could be made by the judiciary as part of the process of the constitutional interpretation of money in the electoral process. Such a possibility occurred in connection with events that took place during the primary phase of the 2008 presidential elections, when a conservative corporation – Citizens United – was prevented from publicizing a movie concerning the suitability of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton as a future president. The organization challenged the provisions of BCRA regarding electioneering communications, which were the source of limitations on the broadcast of a politically-oriented movie, arguing that their freedom of speech guarantees were violated by the legislation. The District Court denied the arguments of Citizens United, so the corporation appealed to the Supreme Court, which reached its decision in 2010.

Apart from the main issue raised by Citizens United about the constitutionality of regulations on electioneering communications, the Court recognized other important aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which should be interpreted in accordance with the constitution, such as the scope of disclosure procedures, the role of campaign contributions as political speech, and, above all, the correctness of the McConnell holding. Five conservative Justices made the majority, underlining the democratic values of freedom of speech, especially referring to corporate communications and contributions in election campaigns, which constituted political speech. The majority acknowledged no difference between funding by individuals and corporations, which had to be protected in order to pursue the ideals of rule of law and democracy.