Restoring Democracy: The Fight Against Citizens United
America is often hailed as the world’s oldest democracy. It’s also often hailed as the world’s most successful democracy. But recently, things have changed. What was once a democracy for the people is slowly becoming a democracy for sale. Before I discuss the Citizens United ruling and its influence on American politics, I want to first provide a background on the history of political spending and corruption in the U.S.
For much of America’s history, election spending was loosely regulated. The amount spent on elections ramped up significantly in the Gilded Age, and so did calls of corruption. To combat this and ensure the safety of the nation’s democracy, congress passed their first act regulating political spending in the early 1900s. In 1907, corporations and national banks were banned from directly donating to candidates. In 1910, the Federal Corrupt Practices Act required full public disclosure of election spending, and put limits on the amount of money individuals could directly donate and campaigns could spend. Nevertheless, these acts were still spotty at limiting corruption. In 1943, the PAC (Political Action Committee), not to be confused with the Super PAC, was born. When unions were added to the list of groups banned from directly contributing to candidates, PACs were formed to serve as organizations that pool money from many individuals and spend that money on specific candidates and issues. As the 1970s came around, decades of political corruption culminated in Watergate, an event that needs no explaining. The fallout from Watergate was significant in the realm of election spending. The re-writing and codifying into law of the FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act) led to the creation of the Federal Election Commission, a bipartisan governing body with six voting members tasked with receiving campaign financial reports and enforcing the law.
Americans were finally able to see transparency within election spending and the enforcement of laws capping direct donations to candidates and causes. It looked as if American democracy was saved due to substantial effort across the aisle. However, this period of accord didn’t last long.
In 1976, the supreme court ruled in Bucky v. Valeo (Sen. James Buckley vs Member of the newly-formed FEC Francis Valeo) that while direct contributions could be capped to limit corruption, indirect spending independent of candidates from an individual’s own resources could not as it’s a form of protected speech. This created the controversial distinction between direct contributions and indirect spending. Now anyone could spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections as long as that money wasn’t tied directly to a candidate. You could still pay for ads, flyers, and billboards advocating for a specific candidate, but it had to come from your money. 1976 entered us into what many call the “soft money” era of spending on American politics.
This leads us to 2010, where the Supreme Court ruled on a ground-breaking case, Citizens United vs FEC. For some information, Citizens United, a conservative political non-profit, wanted to air a film critical of then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. However, the FEC blocked them from doing so, and Citizens United sued. The conservative majority court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United. This set that dangerous precedent that non-profits, corporations, unions, and other groups had the same first-amendment rights under the constitution as individuals. Now, these groups could spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, as long as these funds were indirect and independent. The dissent argued that corporations and other groups were not people under the law and that this ruling would lead to future corruption in the American political process. However, the damage was already done.
That same year, the court ruled again on election spending in SpeechNow vs FEC. This ruling gave birth to the Super PAC. The Super PAC is able to accept and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals and groups, as long as they don’t coordinate directly with candidates.
Combine this with the fact that 501(c) nonprofits do not have to report their donors, and we have created an inherently corrupt system where “dark money” reigns supreme.
Here’s a look at the current-day process:
Individuals and corporations donate hefty sums to nonprofits. These nonprofits then donate this money to Super PACs. Super PACs then spend unlimited amounts of money on influencing elections and issues. When the balance sheet is made public, the nonprofit is what shows up on the Super PACs list as the donor, not the individuals who funded the nonprofit. That is “dark money”, and that’s why we have a problem.
Due to these two rulings, the 2012 presidential election was the most expensive in history. A grand total of $1,294,160,400 was spent in dark money by outside groups. This has continued to ramp up year after year. In the 2024 presidential election, $4,397,605,730 was spent among 4,165 different groups. And presidential elections represent the least of this corruption. Just imagine the scenario in a smaller, state-level race where a Super PAC pours in hundreds of thousands of dollars in flyers, ads, and billboards to win. There’s likely nothing the other candidate can do, and a series of these smaller state-level wins can lead to groundbreaking state legislation. And who funded this Super PAC? It could’ve been a fossil fuel corporation, a weapons manufacturer corporation, or wall street bankers. And these donors always want something in return. Tax breaks or legislation favoring their business operations are commonplace.
But it’s not over! If we want to fix this problem of bribery and corruption, we need to take steps to either get rid of or mitigate the Citizens United ruling.
Here are a list of solutions:
1: Constitutional Amendment
One way to get rid of the problems created by the Citizens United ruling would be a constitutional amendment. This year, 4 prominent representatives and senators introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC and rein in corporate influence in American politics. However, passing a constitutional amendment is incredibly difficult. Especially when a majority of congress has been bought out by the same special interests an amendment would seek to defeat (ridiculous).
2: Public Campaign Financing
Another way to minimize the impact of corporate donations and strengthen the voice of the average citizen is through public campaign financing. This can be done in 2 ways. Firstly, the government can match certain small-dollar donations earned by a candidate with public funds. For example, the government could reward every $1 a candidate receives in donations with $6 in public funding. This incentivizes candidates to not take Super PAC money, as the matching of small-dollar donations can keep them competitive. Secondly, the government could provide vouchers, which constitute a small amount of public funds, to voters. Voters are then able to donate these vouchers to specific candidates. Seattle provides voters with four $25 vouchers to use in city elections through their Democracy Voucher Program. While some argue that these programs could be costly, a 2021 piece of legislation that included public campaign financing provisions was estimated to cost roughly $475 million per year. The government’s FY 2025 budget was approximately $6.975 trillion. This program would represent 0.007% of the yearly budget while helping to solve one of our nation’s most pressing issues.
3: Increased Transparency
Corporations aren’t very popular. It’s difficult for a candidate to win if voters know he’s backed by oil and tech giants. However, “dark money” ensures that voters won’t know who’s funding their candidates. That is why we need to take steps to make election spending more transparent. An example of legislation aimed at achieving this was the DISCLOSE act. This act required groups to report donations above a certain threshold and made it mandatory for political ads to carry disclaimers about their funders.
Overall, the Citizens United ruling has led to the erosion of American democracy as we know it. But it’s up to us to advocate for solutions to this problem. If we don’t act now, we may lose our country as we know it.
https://www.history.com/articles/gilded-age-corruption-corporate-wealth
https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline
https://www.npr.org/2012/11/30/166260533/2012-election-the-most-expensive-in-history
https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/summary?cycle=2012
https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/summary?cycle=2024
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12477?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22IN12477%22%7D&s=1&r=1
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/512