Citizens United: The Supreme Court Sold Democracy to the Highest Bidder by Jeff Callaway
Citizens United: The Supreme Court Sold Democracy to the Highest Bidder
by Jeff Callaway
What Is Citizens United?
Citizens United refers to the landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), which fundamentally reshaped American campaign finance laws. In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down long-standing restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and other organizations, declaring such spending a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment. The case originated from a conservative nonprofit group, Citizens United, which wanted to air a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries. The FEC blocked it under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002—also known as the McCain-Feingold Act—which prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" (ads mentioning candidates) within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.
At its core, the decision equated money with speech, arguing that limiting how much corporations could spend independently on political advocacy violated constitutional protections. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." The Court overturned precedents like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and parts of McConnell v. FEC (2003), which had upheld restrictions to prevent the "corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth." The ruling did preserve some disclosure requirements for spending, but these have proven largely ineffective due to loopholes.
Historical Background Leading to the Case
Campaign finance regulations in the U.S. trace back over a century, driven by concerns over corruption and undue influence from wealthy interests. The Tillman Act of 1907 banned direct corporate contributions to federal candidates, a response to scandals like those involving railroad tycoons during the Gilded Age. This was expanded by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which prohibited unions and corporations from making independent expenditures. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and its 1974 amendments created the FEC and imposed contribution limits, but the Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo drew a key distinction: it upheld limits on direct contributions to candidates (to prevent quid pro quo corruption) but struck down caps on independent expenditures and candidates' personal spending, viewing them as protected speech.
By the early 2000s, "soft money"—unlimited, unregulated donations to parties—had exploded, leading to BCRA in 2002, which banned soft money and restricted electioneering communications. This law aimed to close loopholes allowing corporations to fund ads indirectly influencing elections. However, conservative groups like Citizens United challenged these restrictions, arguing they stifled political expression. The case escalated when Citizens United produced Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute film funded partly by corporate donations, and sought to advertise it on video-on-demand. The FEC ruled this violated BCRA, prompting the lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court.
Oral arguments in 2009 revealed deep divisions. The government's position—that it could theoretically ban books or digital content funded by corporations—alarmed justices like Kennedy, leading to a rare re-argument. The final decision, released on January 21, 2010, was hailed by free speech advocates but decried by reformers as a giveaway to corporate power.
The Ruling: What It Does and Key Arguments
The majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, held that corporations have First Amendment rights akin to individuals, and restricting their independent spending was unconstitutional censorship. They narrowed the definition of "corruption" to direct quid pro quo exchanges (e.g., bribes), dismissing broader concerns like the "appearance of corruption" or undue influence from massive spending. The Court argued that independent expenditures—those not coordinated with candidates—posed no corruption risk, and disclosure rules would suffice for transparency.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor) lambasted the ruling as a threat to democracy: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold." Stevens argued that corporations are not "We the People" and their spending is a business transaction, not natural speech, potentially drowning out individual voices and eroding public trust. He cited polls showing 80% of Americans believed corporate spending gave undue influence, warning of a return to Gilded Age plutocracy.
Subsequent cases amplified the ruling. In SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010), a federal appeals court extended it to allow unlimited contributions to independent expenditure groups, birthing super PACs. McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) eliminated aggregate contribution limits, further unleashing donor floods.
The Impacts: Explosion of Money in Politics
Citizens United didn't just remove barriers—it ignited a spending frenzy. Before 2010, outside groups spent modestly; post-ruling, super PACs and dark money groups became dominant forces.
Rise of Super PACs: These "independent expenditure-only" committees can raise unlimited funds from corporations, unions, and individuals, as long as they don't coordinate directly with candidates (a rule often flouted). From 2010 to 2022, super PACs spent about $6.4 billion on federal elections. In the 2024 cycle alone, 2,502 super PACs raised over $5 billion and spent $2.7 billion, shattering records. Super PACs now handle core campaign functions like voter outreach, ads, and canvassing—tasks once limited to candidates.
Dark Money Surge: Dark money refers to spending by nonprofits (e.g., 501(c)(4) groups) that don't disclose donors. Pre-2010, it was under $5 million; since then, over $1 billion has flowed into federal elections, with $1.9 billion in 2024 alone—a record high. These groups funneled $182 million to super PACs by September 2024, often hiding foreign or corporate sources. In 2024, dark money backed ads in competitive races, with groups like Future Forward PAC receiving $205 million from undisclosed affiliates.
Total Spending Records: The 2024 election saw $1.35 billion in online ads, much undisclosed, and outside groups outspending candidates in key states like Arizona and Ohio. Overall, post-Citizens United spending has tilted heavily toward the ultra-wealthy: In 2024, 10 donors provided 44% ($481 million) of Trump's super PAC funds, versus 8% ($126 million) for Harris.
How It Enables Corporations and Elites to "Buy" Politicians: Concrete Examples
Citizens United allows unlimited "independent" spending, but weak enforcement means coordination is rampant, effectively letting corporations and elites dictate policy. Donors don't need direct bribes; massive spending creates dependency, where politicians prioritize funders over voters.
Elon Musk's Influence: In 2024, Musk donated $277 million to Trump super PACs, funding canvassing and ads in swing states. Post-election, Musk shaped Trump's transition team, derailed a bipartisan budget deal via social media, and met world leaders—actions blurring corporate and governmental lines. Musk's X (formerly Twitter) amplified pro-Trump content, leveraging corporate resources in ways restricted pre-2010.
Miriam Adelson and Casino Interests: Adelson donated over $100 million to pro-Trump super PACs in 2024, echoing her family's past influence. Post-Citizens United, casino giants like hers have spent millions on ads supporting favorable gambling laws, often swaying state referendums and legislators.
Richard Uihlein and Shipping: The billionaire donated $49 million to Trump super PACs in Q3 2024. His company, Uline, benefits from deregulation; such spending has correlated with policies favoring big business, like tax cuts in 2017, where corporate-backed groups spent billions influencing votes.
Broader Corporate Examples: In Pennsylvania, post-2010 rulings enabled ultra-wealthy interests to spend unprecedented sums, outspending candidates in Senate races. Oil and gas firms have funneled dark money to block climate regulations, with studies showing Republican electoral success increasing post-Citizens United due to business-friendly spending. In Ohio's 2024 Senate primary, national super PACs spent $20 million, often from corporate donors, to install business-aligned candidates.
Data substantiates this: The richest 10% now drive policy, with 78% public support for a living wage contrasting 40% among the wealthy. Corporate spending has led to favorable tax policies, reduced regulations, and stalled reforms on issues like minimum wage and environmental protections.
Why It's the Biggest Problem in American Politics Today
Citizens United stands as the epicenter of systemic corruption, transforming democracy into an auction where corporations and elites outbid the public. It forces politicians to chase megadonors, ignoring voter will—evident in gridlock on popular issues like gun control (90% support for background checks) or healthcare reform, while corporate tax cuts sail through.
Amplifies Elite Power: A tiny donor class (e.g., 31,385 people in 2012 funding 28% of elections) dominates, skewing representation toward whites and men, exacerbating racial and economic inequities.
Breeds Secret Spending: Dark money's $1.9 billion in 2024 hides influences, including potential foreign funds, eroding trust—92% of Americans want reduced money in politics.
Fakes Independence: "Independent" groups coordinate via loopholes, evading limits and enabling corruption without accountability.
Distorts Policy: Big money blocks majority-backed reforms, creating plutocracy—research shows policy aligns with donor preferences, not voters'.
Warps the Constitution: By prioritizing corporate "speech," it limits reforms, contradicting founders' fears of wealth's corrosive effects.
This isn't abstract: In 2024, megadonors like Musk didn't just fund wins—they shaped governance, proving elections are bought, not earned. Without reversal—via amendment (supported by 73%) or laws like DISCLOSE—democracy risks becoming a facade for elite bidding.
Comments
Post a Comment
Speak your truth, outlaw! Share your thoughts on this poem or story.