The Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 is rightly remembered as a devastating blow to American democracy, spawning legions of super PACS and dark-money groups with unlimited funds to bring anyone who contravenes donor interests to heel. Outside spending in federal elections has skyrocketed from $730 million at the time of the ruling to a staggering $4.5 billion in 2024.
Now the Supreme Court dares to ask the question: Is it possible to make this bad situation even worse?
The court just agreed to hear a case in the fall that could result in undermining already-weakened campaign finance law. The plaintiffs in National Republican Senatorial Committee et al v. Federal Election Commission et al are seeking to emulate the Citizens United strategy, positing moneyed influence in politics as a First Amendment freedom. Federal restrictions limiting coordination between national party committees and candidates would be abolished.
A ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would mean that corporations and wealthy individuals could spend freely on committees, which could then funnel money to candidates, bypassing existing finance restrictions (which created the need for super PACs in the first place). The Lever calls the upcoming case a “corruption bomb” and estimates that its impact will rival Citizens United if its plaintiffs are successful in winning over the Supreme Court.
The case originated from a 2022 Ohio lawsuit filed by current vice president and self-styled champion of the working class J. D. Vance. The case was designed to ascend through the court system to the Supreme Court, where it could serve as a pretext for overturning a previous ruling against exactly the kind of regulation skirting its plaintiffs are after. Vance’s original…
Auteur: Meagan Day
