How the Citizens United Decision Transformed Campaign Finance and Raised Concerns About Corporate Influence in Politics

The 2010 Supreme Court decision on Citizens United fundamentally changed the landscape of campaign finance in the United States and sparked debates about the influence of corporations on the political process. It relates to the notion of corporations having the same rights as people which raises concerns about corporate influence on political policy.

The Citizens United decision, in essence, extended the concept of "corporate personhood." This legal doctrine treats corporations as legal persons with certain constitutional rights, primarily protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, argued that limiting independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and other associations violated their First Amendment rights. The Court equated political spending with a form of protected speech, maintaining that corporations, like individuals, should be able to freely express their political views.

The practical implication of Citizens United was the removal of restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other entities. This allowed these entities to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates, as long as they operated independently of the candidate's campaign.

Critics of Citizens United argue that by granting corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds in political campaigns, it creates a scenario where the wealthiest entities can exert disproportionate influence over the political process. This has raised concerns about the potential for corruption, the drowning out of individual voices, and the perception that the political system is skewed in favor of corporate interests.

The decision paved the way for the creation of Super PACs (political action committees), independent political action committees that could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, often without disclosing the identity of their donors. This influx of "dark money" into political campaigns has intensified concerns about transparency and accountability.

Citizens United contributed to a shift in the political landscape, allowing corporations and wealthy individuals to have a more significant impact on elections through massive, unrestricted spending. Some argue that this has led to a political system where the influence of money plays an outsized role.

The decision continues to face criticism from those who advocate for campaign finance reform, transparency, and efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. Some have proposed constitutional amendments or legislative changes to address the perceived problems associated with corporate spending.

While Citizens United did not explicitly state that the United States is "ruled by corporations," it has undeniably shaped the nature of political campaigns and fueled debates about the role of money and corporate influence in American democracy.

---

References

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Oyez (Retrieved March 20, 2018).
Dan Eggen, “Poll: Large majority opposes Supreme Court’s decision on campaign financing,” Washington Post (February 17, 2010).
Gabrielle Levy, “How Citizens United Has Changed Politics in 5 Years,” U.S. News & World Report (January 21, 2015).
Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (New York: Doubleday, 2016).