“A Rejection of the Common Sense of the American People”
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down one of the most destructive decisions in American history. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, five conservative justices struck down restrictions on corporate political spending, opened the floodgates to unlimited money in politics, and fundamentally corrupted American democracy.
The numbers tell the story: Outside spending exploded 28-fold, from $144 million in 2008 to over $4.2 billion in 2024. Dark money groups have poured more than $4.3 billion into elections from undisclosed sources. Just 100 billionaires spent $2.6 billion in the 2024 election—nearly 20% of all spending.
Justice John Paul Stevens saw it coming. In a scathing 90-page dissent, he warned that the decision would “undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation” and represented “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding.”
Fifteen years later, every one of his warnings has proven tragically prescient. Citizens United didn’t just change campaign finance law—it converted economic power into political power and corporate wealth into speech. It gave corporations the ability to drown out ordinary citizens in the political process. And it created a system where politicians serve wealthy donors instead of the people who elected them.
This is the story of how the Supreme Court sold American democracy to the highest bidder.
The Case: A Movie About Hillary Clinton
The case began with “Hillary: The Movie,” a 90-minute hit piece released by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, during the 2008 Democratic primary. The film was essentially a feature-length negative advertisement urging viewers to vote against Senator Hillary Clinton.
Citizens United wanted to pay cable companies to make the film available through video-on-demand within 30 days of primary elections. But there was a problem: the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) banned corporations from using general treasury funds for “electioneering communications”—broadcast ads mentioning candidates close to elections.
Citizens United challenged the law, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights. The case presented a narrow legal question about whether this specific film fell under the ban.
The Supreme Court didn’t answer that narrow question. Instead, it used the case to blow up 100 years of campaign finance law.
What the Court Did
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision that:
1. Gave corporations First Amendment rights: The Court held that corporations, as “associations of individuals,” have free speech rights under the First Amendment and can’t be prohibited from political spending based on their corporate identity.
2. Declared money equals speech: Building on Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court held that spending money is essential to speech. Limiting corporate spending therefore limits speech.
3. Redefined corruption: The majority ruled that only direct quid pro quo exchanges—explicit bribes—count as corruption. The broader problem of corporate money influencing politics doesn’t justify restrictions.
4. Overturned precedent: The decision explicitly overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which allowed states to prevent “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth” in politics. It also overturned portions of McConnell v. FEC (2003), which had upheld McCain-Feingold.
The five justices in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the opinion), Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
The four dissenters were Justices John Paul Stevens (who wrote the dissent), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Stevens’s Devastating Dissent
Justice Stevens wrote a 90-page dissent and read portions from the bench—a rare move signaling profound disagreement. His dissent became one of the most powerful critiques of corporate power ever written by a Supreme Court justice.
On Corporate Personhood
“Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”
“Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.”
“The Framers…had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.”
On Corruption
Stevens rejected the majority’s narrow definition of corruption as limited to quid pro quo bribes:
“The Supreme Court had never suggested that such quid pro quo debts must take the form of outright vote buying or bribes.”
The dissent recognized that corruption includes not just explicit bribes but the broader problem of corporate influence warping democratic priorities and creating dependencies between elected officials and wealthy donors.
His Warning
“The Court’s blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”
Stevens concluded: “At bottom…the Court’s opinion…is a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding.”
He was right.
The Flood: Money Overwhelms Democracy
The impact of Citizens United was immediate and catastrophic. The decision didn’t just open a door—it blew the dam.
Outside Spending Exploded 28-Fold
- 2008 (before Citizens United): $144 million in outside spending
- 2012 (first presidential election after): Over $1 billion
- 2024: $4.2 billion
From 2010 to 2024, outside spending to influence federal elections topped $9 billion, with more than $2.6 billion from unknown sources.
Super PACs: The $9 Billion Monster
Two months after Citizens United, a federal appeals court decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC created “super PACs”—political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts as long as they don’t coordinate directly with candidates.
- 2010: Super PACs spent $62.6 million
- 2012: $622.7 million
- 2024: Nearly $2.7 billion
From 2010 to 2024, super PACs spent approximately $9.1 billion on federal elections.
And here’s the kicker: In 2024, the top 1% of super PAC donors provided 97% of all funds. In 2012, that figure was 77%. The wealth concentration is getting worse, not better.
Dark Money: $4.3 Billion from Unknown Sources
Dark money—political spending by organizations that don’t disclose their donors—has exploded:
- 2006 (before Citizens United): Less than $5 million
- 2024: More than $1 billion in the presidential election alone
- Total since Citizens United: At least $4.3 billion
Citizens don’t know who’s trying to influence their votes. Corporate interests can spend millions to shape elections while hiding in the shadows.
Billionaire Spending Increased 160-Fold
Since 2010, billionaire election spending has increased over 160-fold.
In 2024, just 100 billionaire donors poured a record $2.6 billion into elections—nearly 20% of total spending.
American democracy is now dominated by a tiny sliver of ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations. This isn’t government of, by, and for the people. It’s government of, by, and for the highest bidder.
The Real-World Corruption
The Supreme Court claimed independent corporate spending doesn’t cause corruption or the appearance of corruption. This was always absurd. Now we have the receipts.
Money Buys Policy
Research has documented systematic connections between corporate political spending and legislative outcomes:
Financial returns: A 2009 study found that for the average firm lobbying Congress, each $1 spent on lobbying was associated with $6 to $20 in new tax benefits.
Access and influence: Studies show that money “buys” something—“privileged access for contributors and the special attention of members who reward them with vigorous help in the committee process.”
Specific policy outcomes: Corporate donations correlate with votes on:
- Trade policy
- Banking regulations (contributions from banks predicted votes for the 2008 bailout)
- Tax policy (firms that donate consistently pay lower tax rates)
- Healthcare policy
- Environmental regulations
This isn’t a theoretical concern. It’s documented, systematic corruption of the legislative process.
What Corporations Buy
Corporations don’t spend billions on politics for fun. They do it because it works.
Through political spending, companies elect leaders who represent corporate interests and gain access when needed. Corporate political spending leads to policymaking at all levels of government that often places corporate interests over the public interest.
Third-party contributions have seriously undermined numerous companies’ commitments to addressing climate change, LGBTQ rights, reproductive healthcare, and democracy itself.
Companies spend money to shape the rules that govern them and to ensure those rules are enforced (or not enforced) in ways that maximize profit.
The Public Knows the System Is Rigged
Polling data reveals a profound crisis of democratic legitimacy:
Trust in Government at Historic Lows
- Spring 2024: Only 22% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right just about always or most of the time
- 2023: Trust measured 16%—among the lowest in more than six decades of polling
Who Does Government Serve?
In a 2022 Pew Research Center survey, majorities said:
- The federal government unfairly benefits some people over others
- Government doesn’t respond to the needs of ordinary Americans
- Government isn’t adequately careful with taxpayer money
60% of Americans say frustration is the dominant feeling they have about government—and it has been for two decades.
The Elite Advantage
Research points to a political culture heavily influenced by money and beholden to elite moneyed interests that often fails to respond to the real opinions of ordinary people.
Despite popular support for liberal policies on economic issues like government spending on inner cities, the environment, education, and healthcare, representatives tend to be far more conservative—raising questions about the mismatch between what people want and actual policies pursued.
Why? Because wealthier people are far more likely to donate to candidates, and public officials hear these contributors loud and clear—even though they’re a small and unrepresentative slice of the entire population.
The system doesn’t respond to voters. It responds to donors.
The Legal Reasoning Was Garbage
The majority opinion rested on legal arguments that ranged from questionable to outright dishonest.
Corporate Personhood
The idea that corporations deserve the same First Amendment rights as human beings is legally incoherent and historically false.
As Stevens pointed out, corporations are state-created legal fictions that exist only through government charters. They receive special privileges—limited liability, perpetual existence, capital accumulation advantages—not available to natural persons.
Corporations can’t vote, can’t run for office, and aren’t members of “We the People.” The Founders didn’t write the First Amendment to protect corporate political spending. They wrote it to protect individual Americans.
Money = Speech
Equating money with speech converts economic inequality into political inequality. Those with more money get more “speech.”
The equation also ignores the difference between speaking and drowning out others. Unlimited corporate spending doesn’t just add corporate voices to the debate—it overwhelms individual voices and distorts the entire conversation.
The Corruption Lie
The majority’s claim that only quid pro quo bribery counts as corruption was demonstrably false and involved misrepresenting precedent.
Justice Kennedy claimed that Buckley v. Valeo limited corruption to quid pro quo exchanges. This was a lie. Buckley and subsequent cases recognized broader concerns about the corrupting influence of money in politics, including:
- Appearance of corruption
- Undue influence
- Access and influence buying
- Distortion of the political process
Kennedy even cited his own dissenting opinion in McConnell as precedent, failing to note it was a dissent whose reasoning had been expressly rejected by the majority.
The Court ignored extensive congressional findings documenting corruption and the appearance of corruption in the campaign finance system. It substituted its own ideological preferences for democratic judgments made by elected representatives.
Precedent Didn’t Matter
The Court overturned Austin (a 19-year-old precedent) and portions of McConnell (a 7-year-old precedent) without the compelling justification normally required under principles of stare decisis.
The Court didn’t identify changed circumstances that would justify abandoning these precedents. It just installed a new majority willing to impose its ideological preferences over settled law.
The Domino Effect: Subsequent Decisions
Citizens United wasn’t the end. It was the beginning of a sustained campaign to dismantle all campaign finance regulations.
SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010): Creating Super PACs
Just two months after Citizens United, a federal appeals court ruled that because independent expenditures don’t corrupt (according to Citizens United), contribution limits to groups making only independent expenditures are unconstitutional.
This decision created super PACs, which have since spent over $9 billion.
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014): Eliminating Aggregate Limits
In 2014, the Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on how much an individual could give to all candidates and parties combined in an election cycle.
Before McCutcheon, wealthy donors faced base limits per candidate plus a total cap. After McCutcheon, they could give maximum amounts to unlimited numbers of candidates.
The result? Further concentration of political power among the ultra-wealthy.
The Pattern
These decisions represent a coordinated effort by the conservative Supreme Court majority to systematically dismantle campaign finance protections and enable unlimited money in politics.
Every Reform Attempt Has Failed
The DISCLOSE Act: Blocked by Filibuster
The DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) would require greater disclosure of campaign spending and combat dark money.
2010: The Act passed the House but was killed by a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
Since then: Democrats have repeatedly reintroduced the bill. Republicans have blocked it every time.
Even modest transparency reforms—just requiring disclosure of who’s spending money—can’t pass because the system is too corrupted to fix itself.
Constitutional Amendments: Politically Impossible
At least 22 states and hundreds of cities have voted to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen has repeatedly introduced the Democracy for All Amendment, which would empower Congress and states to set reasonable campaign finance rules.
But constitutional amendments require:
- Two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, OR a constitutional convention
- Ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures (38 states)
This extraordinarily high bar makes reform politically impossible—exactly as the wealthy donors blocking reform intend.
State Reforms: Limited Impact
States have tried disclosure requirements, public financing systems, and shareholder protection laws. But these are limited in their ability to address the fundamental problems created by the Supreme Court’s First Amendment interpretation.
The Catch-22
Reform can’t happen through normal politics because Citizens United has corrupted normal politics. The people who benefit from unlimited money in politics use that money to block reforms that would limit money in politics.
The only solution is to change the Court itself.
What This Means for Court Reform
Citizens United is a perfect example of why Supreme Court reform is essential.
Five unelected justices, serving lifetime appointments, rewrote American democracy to:
- Grant corporations the same speech rights as human beings
- Allow unlimited corporate spending to influence elections
- Define corruption so narrowly that only explicit bribes count
- Overturn decades of precedent protecting democracy from corporate domination
- Create a system where billionaires and corporations control politics
The consequences:
- Outside spending increased 28-fold
- Over $9 billion in super PAC spending
- More than $4.3 billion in dark money
- 100 billionaires spending $2.6 billion in a single election
- Systematic correlation between corporate donations and legislative outcomes
- Public trust in government at historic lows
- Every reform attempt blocked
And there’s nothing Congress, state legislatures, or voters can do to reverse it—unless we reform the Court itself.
This is why Court expansion, term limits, or jurisdiction stripping aren’t just policy preferences. They’re democratic necessities.
Because when five unelected judges can hand American democracy to the highest bidder, and voters have no recourse, the Court has too much power.
Conclusion: Democracy for Sale
Justice Stevens ended his dissent with a warning that echoes through history:
“The Court’s opinion is a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding.”
Fifteen years later, his words have proven tragically prescient.
Citizens United converted economic power into political power. It gave corporations the ability to drown out ordinary citizens. It created a system where politicians serve wealthy donors instead of voters. It made American democracy a commodity available for purchase by the highest bidder.
The explosion of money—28-fold increase in outside spending, $9 billion in super PAC money, $4.3 billion in dark money, billionaires controlling 20% of all election spending—isn’t a bug. It’s the feature.
This is what the Supreme Court wanted: a political system dominated by corporate interests and billionaire donors, where ordinary Americans watch from the sidelines while the wealthy decide who governs and what policies pass.
The numbers prove it. The research documents it. The polling confirms it. And every failed reform attempt demonstrates it.
Citizens United didn’t just change campaign finance law. It fundamentally corrupted American democracy.
Until the decision is overturned—either by a reformed Court or by constitutional amendment—American government will continue to represent the interests of wealthy donors instead of the people.
Because when democracy is for sale, only the wealthy can afford to buy it.
And the Supreme Court set the price.