The long-awaited decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was issued on Jan. 21. With a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations and unions may now directly and expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office, as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with campaigns or political parties. Many predict the impacts of the decision will be immense and far-reaching, both for nonprofit voter engagement and political discourse as a whole.

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 2-1 that Washington State felony inmates are entitled to vote under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The court held that current restrictions, which strip convicted felons of the right to vote while incarcerated or under Department of Corrections supervision, unfairly discriminate against minorities.

Robocalls – automated phone messages – are one of the least expensive methods that political candidates use to reach voters. However, restrictions on unsolicited calls have complicated efforts by candidates who want to use political robocalls. While political robocalls are exempt from the national "do not call" registry, some states have implemented restrictions on them. A political organization is now asking whether these state laws run afoul of federal law.

Citizens United, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, developed and sought to run a film about candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary. The group also wanted to promote the film with several ads. The highly critical movie was partially funded by corporate contributions, which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) said was a violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). In a federal lawsuit recently reheard by the U.S. Supreme Court, Citizens United charges that ads for the film should not be subject to donor disclosure and disclaimer requirements and that the BCRA provisions enforced by the FEC are unconstitutional.