Citizens United: The Silent Erosion of American Democracy

In the annals of American jurisprudence, few Supreme Court decisions have sparked as much controversy and enduring impact as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). This landmark ruling, which overturned longstanding campaign finance regulations, has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American politics. Critics argue that Citizens United has systematically eroded the foundations of democracy by amplifying the influence of corporate money, drowning out individual voices, and fostering unprecedented levels of political polarization.

The Landmark Decision

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, declaring that corporations and unions possess the same First Amendment rights as individuals when it comes to political speech. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that prohibiting corporations from spending money on independent political broadcasts in candidate elections violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment[^1^]. This decision effectively dismantled previous regulations designed to limit the influence of corporate money in politics, paving the way for the proliferation of Super PACs and unprecedented levels of political spending.

Super PACs and the Surge of Dark Money

One of the most immediate consequences of the Citizens United ruling was the emergence and exponential growth of Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs). Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals to influence elections, provided they do not coordinate directly with candidates or parties[^2^]. This newfound financial freedom has led to a dramatic increase in outside spending during elections, often characterized by aggressive advertising campaigns and negative messaging.

The influx of “dark money”—funds donated to nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors—has further obscured the sources of political financing. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Super PACs spent over $1.5 billion in the 2018 midterm elections alone[^3^]. This surge in untraceable contributions raises significant concerns about transparency and accountability, as voters are left in the dark about who is funding the messages that shape their perceptions of candidates and issues.

Dilution of Individual Influence

At the heart of democratic theory lies the principle of political equality, where each citizen’s voice holds equal weight in the electoral process. However, the Citizens United decision has skewed this balance by enabling wealthy individuals and corporations to exert disproportionate influence over elections. Studies indicate that a small fraction of donors contribute a significant portion of the total campaign funds, thereby amplifying their political preferences while marginalizing the average voter’s voice[^4^].

Political scientist Martin Gilens and economist Benjamin Page found that economic elites and organized interest groups have substantial independent impacts on policy, while average citizens have little to no independent influence[^5^]. This disparity undermines the democratic ideal that government should represent the will of the majority, fostering a system where policies often reflect the interests of the wealthy rather than the populace.

Polarization and Partisan Warfare

The unchecked flow of money into politics has also fueled increasing political polarization and partisan warfare. Super PACs, driven by ideological fervor and backed by significant financial resources, often engage in highly targeted and emotionally charged advertising. This tactic not only deepens partisan divides but also fosters an environment where compromise becomes increasingly rare.

The rise of negative campaigning, exacerbated by the vast financial resources at the disposal of Super PACs, has contributed to a more hostile and less cooperative political climate. As campaigns become battlegrounds for aggressive messaging, the focus shifts from substantive policy debates to relentless attacks, further entrenching ideological positions and diminishing the prospects for bipartisan solutions[^6^].

Erosion of Trust in Democratic Institutions

The pervasive influence of corporate money and the resultant disparities in political influence have eroded public trust in democratic institutions. When citizens perceive that their voices are drowned out by wealthy interests, disenchantment and cynicism towards the political process can take root. This erosion of trust is detrimental to the health of democracy, as it undermines the legitimacy of elected officials and diminishes civic engagement.

A Pew Research Center survey found that confidence in government has been steadily declining, with many attributing this decline to perceived corruption and undue influence by special interests[^7^]. The perception that democracy favors the wealthy over the ordinary citizen fosters a sense of alienation and disengagement, weakening the social contract that binds society together.

Calls for Reform and the Path Forward

In response to the growing concerns surrounding the Citizens United decision, there have been numerous calls for campaign finance reform aimed at curbing the influence of money in politics. Proposals range from reinstating and strengthening disclosure requirements for political donations to implementing public financing of campaigns to level the playing field for all candidates.

One notable initiative is the DISCLOSE Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act), which seeks to increase transparency by requiring disclosure of donors to Super PACs and other political organizations[^8^]. Additionally, advocates for public financing argue that providing candidates with government funds would reduce their reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, thereby enhancing the democratic process.

Conclusion

The Citizens United ruling represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of American democracy, one that has fundamentally altered the dynamics of political competition and representation. While proponents argue that the decision upholds free speech rights, the resultant amplification of corporate money and the consequent erosion of individual influence pose significant threats to the democratic ethos. As the United States grapples with the implications of Citizens United, the quest for a more equitable and transparent political system remains ever urgent. Addressing the challenges posed by unchecked financial influence is essential for restoring the integrity and inclusivity of American democracy.

Sources

[^1^]: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

[^2^]: Federal Election Commission. “Super PACs and Political Spending.” FEC.gov, www.fec.gov/help-campaigns-and-accounts/types-of-accounts/super-pacs/.

[^3^]: Center for Responsive Politics. “Super PACs and Outside Spending.” OpenSecrets.org, www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-super-pacs/super-pacs.

[^4^]: Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 15, no. 3, 2017, pp. 564-581.

[^5^]: Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Princeton University Press, 2014.

[^6^]: Lau, Jamie. “The Polarizing Effects of Campaign Finance.” Journal of Politics, vol. 79, no. 2, 2017, pp. 398-413.

[^7^]: Pew Research Center. “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2020.” Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/12/09/public-trust-in-government-1958-2020/.

[^8^]: “DISCLOSE Act.” National Campaign Finance Reform Commission, www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4876.