WHAT IS CITIZENS UNITED ?

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, struck down longstanding restrictions on corporate and union spending in elections, ruling that such expenditures constitute protected free speech under the First Amendment.

The real-world consequences for political equity and integrity have been devastating.

WHY OVERTURN IT ?

Citizens United was a profoundly flawed ruling that has harmed American democracy in five key ways:

I.

It Equates Corporate Money with Free Speech, Distorting the First Amendment

The decision fundamentally misapplies First Amendment protections by granting corporations—legal entities designed for economic purposes—the same speech rights as individuals. This inverts the amendment's purpose, which is to protect human freedoms from powerful organizations, not empower them.

Corporate "speech" isn't truly free; it's funded by coerced resources from employees, consumers, and investors who have no direct say in how it's used, often conflicting with their own interests or values.

By allowing fiduciaries (like executives) to spend vast corporate treasuries on politics, the ruling enables a form of legalized corruption where narrow business agendas drown out citizen voices, threatening our fundamental system of self-government that is America itself.

II.

It Unleashes Unlimited Spending by Wealthy Interests, Tilting Elections Toward the Rich

Post-Citizens United, super PACs and outside groups can raise and spend unlimited funds, leading to an explosion in political expenditures dominated by billionaires and corporations.

From 2010 to 2022, super PACs poured about $6.4 billion into federal elections, with a record $2.7 billion in 2024 alone, much of it from a handful of ultra-wealthy donors who outspent millions of small contributors.

This creates an imbalance where political influence is fused with private wealth, reminiscent of Gilded Age plutocracy, and erodes the one-person-one-vote principle by amplifying the voices of the powerful in the public square.

III.

It Enables Dark Money and Reduces Transparency

The ruling assumed unlimited spending would remain transparent and independent, but it has fueled "dark money" from “nonprofits” that exist to intentially hide donor identities, rising from under $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in 2024.

Super PACs often receive funds from these opaque groups, obscuring their sources—including potential foreign influences—and depriving voters of information needed for informed decisions.

Weak enforcement by the Federal Election Commission has allowed illegal coordination between campaigns and outside groups, further undermining accountability.

As a result, elections are increasingly rigged by secret spending, making it in some cases impossible to trace who is buying influence.

IV.

It Narrows the Definition of Corruption, Ignoring Broader Harms

The Court adopted an overly limited view of corruption, focusing only on direct quid pro quo exchanges while ignoring systemic issues like regulatory capture and "law for sale."

Unlimited corporate spending allows firms to threaten and intimidate politicians with attack ads and reward them with post-office perks, leading to policies that favor monopolies, bailouts, and exploitation over public interest.

This distorts the concept of fairness itself, reinforcing privilege and status quo interests over innovation, and risks turning the U.S. into a system where growth stagnates from entrenched inefficiencies.

V.

It Undermines Public Trust

Overall, Citizens United has eroded democratic equality by allowing big money to dominate discourse, with polls showing broad bipartisan disapproval: over 70% of Americans support limits on super PAC spending.

It has contributed to voter cynicism, as everyday voices are overshadowed, and made reducing money's role in politics a top public priority.

Even in 2025, its effects persist in record-breaking election costs and influence peddling, prompting calls for reformer organizations like us to demand stronger disclosure laws and a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.