Ramtin Arablui and Randa Abdelfattah

In fact, there are a bunch of corporations that argued against the outcome in Citizens United.

They didn't want to be drawn into this.

All the attention on the Citizens United ruling overshadowed another case happening around the same time in a lower court.

One that would build off the ruling from Citizens United and make the case that since corporations could raise and spend whatever money they wanted, any group should be allowed to do this.

Even groups that had been restricted under McCain-Feingold and other election laws before.

Within the same week that Citizens United is decided, the DC Circuit heroes oral argument on a case called Speech Now versus FEC.

and decides that case two months later.

SpeechNow was a nonprofit created by a small group of libertarians to promote the First Amendment.

Specifically, they wanted to advocate for and against different candidates, but they would have had to organize as a political committee in order to do that.

They went to court to argue that wasn't fair.

And two months later, the DC Circuit cites Citizens United about two dozen times in 20 pages and says, essentially, Citizens United ties our hands in this case.

Would have been a different case probably before, but because of Citizens United and what it says about the government's constrained ability to regulate expenditures, it's clear speech now has the ability to be a super PAC, to be able to raise money without contribution limits, as long as they're only engaging in this kind of independent speech.

In March of 2010, SpeechNow won.

And now, any group that wanted to raise and spend unlimited money on their own messages, their own speech, they could.

Within a few months, close to 80 new super PACs filed with the FEC in time for the 2010 midterm elections.

2010 ends up being by far the most expensive midterm election in American history.

but it wouldn't be the most expensive to date.

Coming up, super PACs explode.

In January 2010, President Barack Obama gave his State of the Union address.

It was just a few days after the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United, opening the door to massive changes to election fundraising and spending.