In the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that the government cannot restrict independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The key findings were:
First Amendment Protection for Corporate Speech: The Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The majority opinion stated that political speech is indispensable to a democracy and that this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.
Overturning Previous Restrictions: The decision invalidated provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act) that prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for “electioneering communications”—broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
Disclosure Requirements Upheld: While the Court lifted restrictions on corporate spending, it upheld the BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements for political advertising. This means corporations and unions must still disclose their spending and include disclaimers on advertisements, promoting transparency in the electoral process.
How Congress Could Address Corporate Lobbying Through Legislation:
To counteract the influence of corporate lobbying while respecting constitutional boundaries, Congress could consider several legislative strategies:
Constitutional Amendment: Since the Supreme Court’s decision is based on interpreting the First Amendment, Congress could propose an amendment to the Constitution clarifying that constitutional rights are intended for natural persons only, not corporations. This would allow for the regulation of corporate political spending and lobbying activities. However, amending the Constitution is a challenging process that requires approval by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Given the unlikely prospect of this, the considerations below should be evaluated:
Enhanced Disclosure and Transparency: Congress can strengthen laws requiring full disclosure of political spending by corporations and lobbyists. By mandating detailed reporting of contributions and expenditures, including funding sources for Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs, the public gains better insight into who is influencing elections and legislation. Increased transparency can deter undue influence and allow voters to make more informed decisions.
Regulation of Lobbying Activities:
Strict Lobbying Regulations: Implement tighter regulations on lobbying activities, such as requiring lobbyists to register and report their interactions with public officials, limiting the amount they can spend on influencing legislation, and enforcing cooling-off periods for former government officials before they can become lobbyists.
Limiting Gifts and Contributions: Prohibit or further limit gifts, travel expenses, and other incentives that lobbyists may offer to politicians, reducing the potential for conflicts of interest.
Public Financing of Elections: Establish or expand public funding programs for political campaigns to reduce candidates’ reliance on large corporate donations. Matching small individual contributions with public funds encourages politicians to seek support from a broader base rather than a few wealthy donors. Make national election days a Federal Holiday to vote in person.
Shareholder Approval for Political Expenditures: Require corporations to obtain consent from their shareholders before making significant political contributions or expenditures. This ensures that such spending aligns with the interests of the owners rather than just corporate executives.
Tax Reforms: Adjust the tax code to remove deductions for corporate lobbying expenses or impose taxes on excessive political spending. This approach discourages corporations from allocating large sums to influence politics by making it more costly to do so.
Strengthening Anti-Corruption Laws: Enhance laws that prevent quid pro quo arrangements between corporations and politicians. By increasing penalties for corruption and enforcing strict compliance, Congress can reduce the likelihood of policy decisions being swayed by corporate interests.
I am a free speech absolutist, however, the fact that wealthy corporations and individuals can essentially donate unlimited sums, and that is somehow protected by the 1st Amendment is incomprehensible. Corporations are not citizens, corporations cannot vote, so corporations should not be deciding elections based on how much money they can throw at it.
Ending this corporate capture would be transformational in giving the power back to the people, however, we would also need to establish clearer election laws surrounding primaries and debates. The two parties we all fight over every 4 years are private corporations that have zero reason to support true democracy.
Thanks for your post & hopefully this can get some traction!
End Corporate Personhood. The 1st amendment is for people to speak truth to power. The founders did not intend for it to be used for corporate entities to lie and manipulate to make money. Or for them to lobby for laws that protect their incumbent position.
The integrity of our democracy is built on the principle that every citizen’s voice should carry equal weight. However, the 2010 ‘Citizens United v. FEC’ decision has deeply undermined this principle, allowing unlimited political spending by corporations, unions, and special interest groups. This ruling has opened the floodgates for massive sums of money to pour into our political system, disproportionately amplifying the voices of the wealthy few while silencing ordinary Americans. It is time to reverse this destructive trend by overturning Citizens United and restoring the power of the people over the influence of money.
Moreover, transparency in political spending is essential to ensuring accountability and trust in our political system. Dark money groups, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts without disclosing their donors, have eroded the transparency that is critical to a functioning democracy. Voters have the right to know who is funding political campaigns and influencing policy decisions. We must implement robust transparency measures that require full disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures.
I propose the following measures:
Overturn Citizens United through a Constitutional Amendment: This landmark decision must be reversed to restore sensible limits on corporate and union spending in elections. By overturning Citizens United, we can curb the influence of moneyed interests and re-establish a more equitable democratic process where elected officials are accountable to the people—not to wealthy donors or corporate interests.
Enforce Comprehensive Transparency in Political Spending: It is critical that we introduce legislation requiring full and timely disclosure of all political donations and spending, especially from dark money organizations. This includes making donor identities publicly available and ensuring that all financial contributions, no matter the amount, are traceable and transparent. In addition, we need to close loopholes that allow foreign entities to secretly influence our elections through anonymous donations.
By implementing these two reforms, we can begin to reverse the tide of unchecked political spending, restore transparency, and return control of our government to its rightful owners: the American people.
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has caused a myriad of significant problems in our elections.
The ruling allows unlimited corporate spending on elections (including unions and other entities) giving overwhelming influence to wealthy parties vs. individuals. The completely thwarts the idea of political equality. Wealth can overcome the voices of ordinary voters distorting public discourse. In addition, this can skew policies in favor of the rich at the expense of the middle and working classes, eroding trust in our government.
The rise of Super PAC’s were also the result of the CU decision. These organizations, created by established donors can collect sometimes unlimited amounts of money from hidden donors to further the agenda of a small group of individuals or entities.
Having people elected largely by the use of these funded groups causes long term erosion of our democracy and should be reversed.
I would put this as the #1 issue in America today. Corporate $'s greatly exceed citizen’s donations and those corporate donations will always be for the betterment of the corporation, not our citizens.
Overturning Citizens United v. FEC is essential to restoring the integrity of American democracy. The 2010 Supreme Court decision equated corporate spending with free speech, allowing unlimited political contributions from corporations and special interest groups. This has led to an outsized influence of wealthy entities in elections, drowning out the voices of everyday citizens. Democracy should be rooted in equal participation, not determined by financial power. Overturning Citizens United would curb the influence of money in politics, ensuring a more equitable system where public officials are accountable to voters, not corporate donors.
Thanks for sharing this! It’s so important we take back power over our politicians, they need to work for us and not big money interest. Until this changes we will never have any change in this country so long as we have puppets in office.
Citizens United removed donation limits and created unlimited donations to Super PACs. We need to craft policy to legally dismantle this unlimited game. We need to find a way to respect the first amendment that was used to open the unlimited donation floodgates with the Citizens United ruling. The unlimited donation policy is evil and bad for our country We should not completely remove donations, rather just limit them to remove dollars from the political landscape that creates terrible results.
Recommended Citation
Conrad Foreman, Money in Politics: Campaign Finance and Its Influence Over the Political Process and
Public Policy, 52 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 185 (2018)
another user, @RHarg , suggested on the forum: Limit campaign contributions to only people with a primary address in candidates district, county, or state for any and every race. i.e. No funds can be contributed to a Texas senate race from California and vice versa. This includes school board, city mayoral elections, and county commissioner’s court. No foreign contributions and no non-citizen can donate to any local, state, or federal election.
The Federal Reserve is the #1 issue in the US. However, if we can’t get rid of Citizens United, we probably can’t end the FED, so I will second your statement that CU is #1.
Citizens United afforded the same “rights” to corporations as citizens. It has enabled corporations to usurp the restrictions placed on individual voters in terms of financial contributions and given immeasurable power to the very institutions that look to enslave and weaken us. It is killing the US and the root of all of our issues.
Until it is gone we are all walking ATMs. In perpetual servitude of our “corporate citizen” overlords. We are second class citizens limited in our reach based only because of our wallets and connections. It has pushed real American citizens to the back and enabled our “corporate citizens” to take priority and write policy based on “their” goals to drive revenue regardless of the impact on individual citizens.
Allow only individual contributions and not corporate contributions and Super PACs. Make the maximum contribution fair so that anyone could afford it. $6,600 which is the current max for independent candidates should apply to all candidates. This would get more people involved in the political process. We would have more then 2 candidates maybe 5-7. Where you would narrow the pool down is in the signature gathering process. Make the number larger in every state where it would show clearly that the population would like to see this person on the ballot and debate stage
The real simple answer is to eliminate PACs entirely. No Political Action Committees at all. Candidates get Candidate Action Committees (CACs) that can receive individual contributions up to 6600 dollars. This could, in theory be enacted by executive order as enforcement against money laundering and bribery, which is the executive branch using it’s Constitutional power to enforce existing laws against illegal activities, money laundering and bribery. This is something that could be done without congressional approval and it would likely hold up in Supreme Court.
Reverse “Citizens United” which deemed money “speech” and allowed unlimited Corporate Dollars to flood into politicians’ pockets, which functionally ended the concept of Government “By, For and Of the People,” through unlimited capital influence in our halls of power.
We have been dealing with financial interests dominating public policy ever since this decision by SCOTUS. It is impossible to have actually impartial decisions on policy, law, & Government budgets & spending with the amount of money flooding into our political system from special interests, military contractors, the bio-security complex, pharmaceutical corporations & big banks, etc.
If Citizens United were to be reversed the US Political System could potentially recover from this inherently corrupting situation which has placed international & powerful forces of capitol at the “helm” of our Nation.
Every honest person knows that Citizens United has had the perhaps most deleterious and undemocratic effect on American politics.
While MAGAxMAHA has a mandate from the people, and during the “honeymoon phase” we must collectively make a push to overturn Citizens United. RFK has spoken publicly on the topic, proposing that we motivate each state to pass an amendment; whatever the method, it must be done.
This would cement the MAGAxMAHA legacy, it will reverberate forever. It would restore democracy more than any one act or law could.
Please RFK, he’ll mobilize us. Pass this reform as soon as we can.
In 2 years, the entire House would be people elected by the people, for the people, not people elected by ultra-national, global corporations, for corporations. It would be transformative, and have lasting effect that cannot be overturned; not even SCOTUS could touch it since the legislature responded to the ruling (which many judges in the ruling opined should happen).