Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 Supreme Court case involving the regulation of political campaign spending by organizations, is one of the Court’s worst decisions of all time. The Court made a grave error with the Citizens United decision, and we should work hard to see it overturned.

​

In the decision, the Supreme Court held, in a 5–4 vote, that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations – meaning these organizations can now spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities as long as they don’t give money directly to political candidates and their spending is not coordinated with any candidate (a “prohibition” that is a total joke).

​

This decision – together with another awful federal court decision, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission – gave rise to so-called Super PACs.  Super PACs, or “independent expenditure only” committees, can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates.

​

The Citizens United decision is deeply flawed mainly for its unintended consequences, because the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) interpretation of it has caused even more damage than the decision itself. The Supreme Court held that independent expenditures should be “totally independent” of candidates and made it clear that corporate spending should be fully disclosed.  However, neither is being properly enforced, to say the least. Because they are allowed to be shady, Super PACs – in conspiracy with their candidates – have taken political warfare to a new level.

 

The Supreme Court’s ruling included this statement: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”  Let’s check to see if that’s actually true…

​

A report by Issue One, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, found that “twelve political megadonors – at least eight of whom are billionaires – are responsible for $1 of every $13 in federal elections since Citizens United and 25 percent of all giving from the top 100 ZIP codes – a total of $3.4 billion.”

 

We don’t know about you, but that sure doesn’t sound right to us.

​

Super PACs are the perfect way for corporations, unions, and rich people to influence elections and gain political influence and access. There is no better example of this than Elon Musk, who famously spent $277 million to support Donald Trump and other Republicans in the 2024 election. Next thing you know, he’s waving around chainsaws, becomes a permanent fixture at Mar-A-Lago, and was given free reign to almost destroy the framework of our entire federal government through his failed DOGE experiment.

​

Technically, Super PACs are legally required to report where their money comes from but, naturally, they have devised a way to undermine any transparency by funneling money through secretly funded “dark money” groups – which are, for some strange reason, allowed to keep their donors hidden from the public.

​

These groups channel money to elections typically though donations given to 501(c)(4) social welfare groups or 501(c)(6) trade associations. While Super PACs do have to disclose these groups, they are only required to disclose the name of the group, not who gave money to the group – so the true source of the money remains a secret.

​

In total, $5.3 billion was spent on the 2024 presidential election by presidential candidates, political parties and independent interest groups. If you count Senate and House candidates, that number jumps to $14.8 billion. “Dark money” groups accounted for over $1.9 billion of that number.