It's Time to Turn the Page on Citizens United

Does extreme wealth concentration undermine democracy?

---

Written on March 14th, 2025

Written by Kathy Bian

In 2010, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC transformed the landscape of American democracy, granting corporations and unions the same First Amendment rights as people regarding political spending. In last year’s presidential election, Kamala Harris raised $1 billion in three months, and Donald Trump has raised $853 million this calendar year, according to a New York Times article. One has to wonder: How much does extreme wealth concentration undermine democratic principles and participation? The Citizens United decision has unleashed a flood of “dark money” into elections, allowing billionaires and special interest groups to pour unlimited funds into campaigns anonymously. As a result, the electorate’s power is drowned out by the interests of the wealthy, eroding trust in democracy and distorting the democratic process. To fully restore the power to the people, it’s time to turn the page on  Citizens United and enact a public funding finance program.

A nonprofit organization that tracks and publishes data on campaign finances and lobbying, OpenSecrets, defines PACs, or political action committees, as “committee[s] organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates. Most PACs represent labor, business, or ideological interests and can donate up to $5,000 to a candidate per election.” Additionally, OpenSecrets defines “super-PACs” as “independent expenditure-only committees… [that] may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates.” Super-PACs are prohibited from donating directly to the candidate’s campaign, but can engage in uncoordinated campaign activity that still significantly shifts political outcomes.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on corporate independent expenditures, which has enabled corporations and external interest groups to funnel unlimited amounts of money to advocate for a political campaign. This led to the boom of super PACs. The conservative Court argued that “prompt disclosure” would be proficient in preventing corporate influence from dominating the electoral process because voters can “give proper weight to different speakers and messages,” according to the Campaign Legal Center.  But what is prompt disclosure, and have voters actually considered who controls the purse strings of campaigns before they decide at the ballot box? Today, voters are still left in the dark about the accuracy of campaign funding sources because 1) they are uninformed about how to trace the money back to specific groups, and 2) they don’t know where to find this information. Dark money groups exacerbate this problem even more as they are under no legal obligation to disclose their donors, OpenSecrets explains. Dark money in politics has increased alarmingly, with the Brennan Center for Justice estimating that “more than $174 million in the 2014 midterms” consisted of dark money donors. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the integrity of the democratic process, as voters are often unaware of who genuinely influences elections and shapes political agendas.

This claim remains steadfast in the upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court election on April 1st. Elon Musk’s super PAC—America PAC—has donated $6.18 million to the conservative candidate Brad Schimel, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Wisconsin Public Radio reports that from February 19th to February 26th, Musk donated nearly $2 million for canvassing efforts and over $2.5 million for digital media efforts. The names Brad Schimel and his liberal opponent, Susan Crawford, are certainly household names for all Wisconsinites, with the winner determining the outcome on abortion law, labor rights and gerrymandering issues for all of Wisconsin. This illustrates a more significant theme of competitive elections: the higher the stakes, the more outside money is donated.

It’s hard to argue that “one person, one vote” still holds when multi-billionaires donate large amounts of money in competitive elections. Because of the rise in competitive elections that can increase outside spending, it is time to introduce a public finance program for federal offices. This program would be optional, as it would use public funds to match low-dollar donations from residents. In 2019, New York approved a local small donor public financing program to provide an eight-to-one match on a donation. For example, a $10 contribution would receive an $80 match from public funds, totaling $90 for the candidate. If enacted at a federal level, this can create immense changes to campaigning, as candidates are now required to build broad bases of local support with everyday constituents instead of pandering to the wealthy. These programs have provided positive outcomes in elections. In Seattle, four out of six city council races were hailed as victorious despite millions in corporate expenditures against candidates with primarily grassroots support, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. 

By shifting the focus away from billionaire-backed campaigns to grassroots support, such a system would ensure that political power strives towards equal distribution. If American democracy was truly designed to reflect the people’s will, it’s time to break away from the grip of dark money and prioritize campaign finance reform.

---