How Did Citizens United Work Out?
A citizen of Switzerland who has lived in the United States for decades is among the small group of billionaires donating hundreds of millions of dollars to various political causes. That’s supposed to be illegal. Among his donations are contributions to election campaigns of Democratic candidates and progressive causes.
In writing for the Supreme Court’s January 21, 2010, opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, (FEC) Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” History has proven Justice Kennedy mistaken.
Election spending restrictions in place for over 100 years prior to Citizens United were overturned by the Supreme Court decision, which enabled “independent political spending,” provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. Justice Kennedy’s transparency has been sidestepped by donors contributing funds to organizations that are not required to disclose donors’ names.
Two months after Citizens United, a District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC “effectively paved the way for super PACs — ushering in an era of groups accepting massive donations and spending practically unlimited sums so long as they don’t coordinate with candidates or political parties.” As explained in reporting by OpenSecrets, “While super PACs are required to disclose donors, the ultimate source of those funds can be concealed behind contributions from shell companies or dark money groups.”
As a result, the citizen of Switzerland and other billionaires, foreign and domestic, make unlimited donations to candidates and on partisan issues before federal and state legislatures. OpenSecrets estimated the two court decisions resulted in spending on the 2022 federal and state midterm elections exceeding $16.7 billion, as “dark money” was increasingly routed through shell companies or nonprofit groups, money not reported to the FEC.
The 2020 presidential election was the first that benefited Democrats over Republicans. Per OpenSecrets, “That’s a continuation from the 2018 midterm elections when Democrats benefited from more dark money than their Republican counterparts at the federal level for the first time since Citizens United.” And yet, “Democrats have consistently called for closing loopholes in campaign finance law that allow secret donors to bankroll pricey political ads.”
Although 63% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans favor reducing the influence of money in politics, “Republicans have defended dark money and remain opposed to efforts to unmask secret political donors. Wealthy donors have said in private they make dark money donations to avoid backlash from their customers and employees.”
Allowing wealth to be a determinant of political influence violates the democratic principle of one man, one vote. Regardless of whether one agrees with some of the causes supported by that Swiss citizen living in Wyoming, no individual or organization should be allowed to use wealth to subvert democratic government.