The Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling has fundamentally altered the landscape of campaign finance in the United States, igniting fierce debate over its implications for democracy. The decision paved the way for a surge in outside spending across all levels of elections—from presidential campaigns to local school board races—fueling concerns about the growing influence of money in politics and prompting calls for reform.
Citizens United Ruling Overview
In a narrow 5-4 decision issued on January 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, declaring them unconstitutional under the First Amendment. This ruling overturned key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which had previously limited corporate funding for electioneering communications, and reversed earlier decisions that upheld such restrictions. The Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, argued that political spending is a form of protected speech essential to a democratic society, fundamentally reshaping campaign finance law in the United States.
Super PACs and Dark Money
The ruling paved the way for the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions, and other groups. In 2018 alone, 2,475 super PACs reported over $1.3 billion in independent expenditures.
This surge in spending has been accompanied by a rise in “dark money” – funds spent on political advertising without disclosure of their sources. Dark money spending exceeded $1 billion in the 2020 election cycle, complicating transparency in electoral processes and raising concerns about the influence of undisclosed donors on political outcomes.
Local Elections Post-Citizens United
State and municipal elections have experienced a seismic shift in funding dynamics since the 2010 ruling. With restrictions on corporate and union spending invalidated, local races have seen a surge in financial influence from wealthy donors and national interest groups. For example, the Los Angeles Board of Education elections in 2017 became the most expensive school board race in U.S. history, with nearly $10 million spent by charter school advocates.
Similarly, Seattle’s 2023 City Council races saw over $1 million in outside spending, predominantly from business and real estate groups backing conservative candidates, while unions supported progressives.
These financial shifts have increased the stakes and nationalized local politics. Advocacy groups and megadonors often target specific policy issues—such as education reform or housing regulations—shaping outcomes that align with their interests rather than community priorities.
Public Opinion and Reform
Widespread dissatisfaction with the Citizens United ruling has fueled a growing movement for reform. Approximately 75% of Americans, including majorities from both major political parties, support a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.
This sentiment reflects concerns that the ruling has led to a government increasingly beholden to wealthy donors rather than constituents. In response, advocacy groups have mobilized efforts to amend the Constitution, with numerous states and municipalities passing resolutions calling for such an amendment.
These grassroots initiatives signal a strong public desire to restore democratic principles by limiting corporate influence in politics and ensuring elections reflect the will of ordinary voters rather than financial elites.
Grassroots Movements Challenging Citizens United
Grassroots movements have emerged as a powerful force in challenging the Citizens United ruling, with organizations like End Citizens United (ECU) leading the charge. ECU has been at the forefront of efforts to elect pro-democracy candidates and hold corrupt politicians accountable.
In the 2022 election cycle alone, ECU logged over 53,000 miles in campaign travel and filed a record number of ethics and campaign finance complaints against Republican candidates.
These grassroots efforts extend beyond electoral politics. More than 3 million petition signatures have been gathered in support of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and 16 states, along with over 600 municipalities, have passed resolutions backing such an amendment.
This widespread support reflects the public’s overwhelming opposition to the ruling, with voters rejecting Citizens United by a nearly 3-1 margin across party lines. These movements are focused on legislative change and educating the public about the dangers of unlimited corporate spending in elections and the need for campaign finance reform to protect democracy.
State-Level Pushback Initiatives
State-level initiatives have been pivotal in countering the effects of the Citizens United ruling, with numerous states taking action to curb the influence of unlimited political spending. As of recent years, 22 states and over 800 localities have passed resolutions or measures calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.
These efforts reflect a widespread recognition of the need to restore transparency and fairness in elections. Key examples include Montana and Colorado, where voters overwhelmingly approved ballot measures in 2012 demanding such an amendment. Similarly, New York became the 17th state to join this movement in 2015, signaling bipartisan support for reform.
Beyond resolutions, states like Maine and Arizona have implemented public financing systems to reduce reliance on private donations, showcasing alternative models for campaign finance reform.
These state-level actions demonstrate a growing determination to rein in the outsized influence of money in politics and protect democratic integrity at all levels.
Judicial Challenges to State Reforms
State-level campaign finance reforms have faced significant judicial challenges in the wake of Citizens United. In 2022, the Supreme Court struck down a Maine law prohibiting foreign government-influenced corporations from spending in state elections.
This decision highlighted the ongoing tension between state efforts to regulate campaign spending and federal court interpretations of the First Amendment. Several states have seen their contribution limits contested in court. Montana’s campaign contribution limits were upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 after a lengthy legal battle.
However, the same court struck down Alaska’s limits in 2018.
These cases demonstrate the complex legal landscape states must navigate when attempting to regulate campaign finance, with courts often applying strict scrutiny to laws that limit political speech or associational activity.
Coalitions Advocating for Transparency
Coalitions advocating for transparency in political financing have emerged as crucial actors in the fight against undue influence in elections. Organizations like the Coalition for Integrity work to raise integrity standards in both public and private sectors, promoting consistent enforcement of anti-bribery standards and advocating for closing loopholes in anti-money laundering frameworks.
These efforts aim to prevent corrupt individuals from enjoying the proceeds of crime and corruption in political processes. On a global scale, initiatives like Transparency International’s Clean Money in Elections project support chapters in multiple countries to hold decision-makers accountable for the transparency and fairness of political financing.
This project addresses issues that enable undue influence in public policy and hinder equal opportunities for women political candidates. By generating sustained public demand for transparency, facilitating political engagement towards reforms, and developing innovative monitoring methods, these coalitions work to ensure that elected leaders serve the public interest rather than campaign donors.
Supreme Court Cases Post-Ruling
The Citizens United ruling has set a powerful precedent, influencing subsequent Supreme Court decisions that further expanded the role of money in politics. In SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010), the Court allowed the creation of super PACs, enabling unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions, as long as they remained uncoordinated with candidates’ campaigns. This decision amplified the influx of “dark money” into elections, with over $1 billion spent in the 2020 cycle alone.
Another significant case was Ted Cruz for Senate v. FEC (2022), where the Court struck down limits on how much candidates could use to repay personal campaign loans, citing First Amendment protections. This decision, rooted in the logic of Citizens United, eliminated repayment caps, allowing candidates to recover unlimited funds from donors’ post-election without risking quid pro quo corruption due to existing contribution limits. These cases underscore the enduring impact of Citizens United on campaign finance law and its ongoing role in shaping the legal landscape of political spending.
Democracy’s Ongoing Challenge
The Citizens United ruling has profoundly reshaped American politics, unleashing unprecedented levels of outside spending and dark money in elections at all levels. While supporters argue it protects free speech, critics contend it has given wealthy special interests outsized influence, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens.
Despite widespread public opposition and grassroots efforts to overturn the decision, its effects continue reverberating through our democratic system.
As the debate over money in politics intensifies, balancing free speech protections with concerns about electoral integrity and equal representation remains a central challenge for American democracy in the years ahead.
The Cost of Restrictive Abortion Laws: Women Are Dying After Being Denied Medical Care
The implementation of restrictive abortion laws in various U.S. states has led to significant challenges in providing timely and necessary medical care to pregnant women facing complications. These laws, often designed to protect fetal life, have, in some cases, resulted in delayed or denied medical interventions, leading to severe health consequences and, tragically, fatalities. The following cases highlight the dire repercussions of such legislation.
If you are pregnant and need help – any kind of help – please see our Resource article.
If you are seeking abortion services please see our guide here.
READ: The Cost of Restrictive Abortion Laws: Women Are Dying After Being Denied Medical Care.
.
