Heard of Citizens United? Meet Its Dark Twin

A Mini-Wiki on the Court Cases that Sold Us Out to Billionaires

Remembering a Different Democracy

It’s hard to remember a time before dark money and corporate influence saturated every election. I personally wasn’t clued into the ins and outs of American politics, which looked vastly different, in prior decades. On January 21, 2010, a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision in Citizens United v. FEC that tilted the trajectory of American democracy. The Court’s ruling declared that corporate political spending was a form of protected free speech, paving the way (whether unwittingly or not) for a flood of unprecedented political spending and influence.

Then, on the heels of Citizens United, came the ruling that ignited the political reality we know today, marked by extreme polarization and brazen authoritarianism.

Citizens United and Surrounding Events

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed unlimited corporate and union spending on elections, dramatically altering the American political landscape.

Are Corporations People?

One of the most controversial legacies of Citizens United is the idea that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals when it comes to political speech. This logic, rooted in earlier court precedents, was cemented by the Court’s ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on political advertising, just like people can.

Critics argue that this principle warps democracy, giving artificial legal entities (with vastly more resources) the same rights as human citizens, without the same accountability.

This is where the phrase “corporations are people” entered the public lexicon. While it oversimplifies the legal theory, it captures the public’s outrage over the elevation of corporate influence in civic life.

Timeline of Major Events

March 2009: Citizens United case initially argued in Supreme Court.

January 21, 2010: Supreme Court issues 5–4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

• Majority:

  • John Roberts (remains Chief Justice today)

  • Antonin Scalia (d. 2016)

  • Anthony Kennedy (r. 2018)

  • Clarence Thomas (still serving)

  • Samuel Alito (still serving)

• Dissenting:

  • Justice John Paul Stevens (wrote primary dissent, r. 2010, d. 2019)

  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (d. 2020)

  • Justice Stephen Breyer (r. 2022)

  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor (still serving)

March 26, 2010: SpeechNow.org v. FEC decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Supreme Court later declined to hear the case (more on this below)

July 27, 2010: SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, conservative advocacy group SpeechNow.org becomes first Super PAC

2012 Election Cycle: $609 million spent by Super PACs

2014 McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court removes aggregate limits on individual contributions

2016 Election Cycle: Super PAC spending exceeds $1 billion for the first time

2020 Election Cycle: In just four years spending more than doubles to a record-breaking $2.6 billion spend by Super PACs

2021-2024: Rise of authoritarian rhetoric in mainstream politics, intensified by wealthy donors and dark money groups

The Original Super PAC

The less-remembered legal milestone, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission (decided March 2010), is arguably more significant than Citizens United in terms of practical political impact. It didn’t come from the Supreme Court, but rather from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling created the legal foundation for what we now call Super PACs—independent expenditure-only committees that can raise and spend unlimited funds, and which wealthy donors can hide behind, as long as they do not coordinate with candidates. Not even corporations have that little oversight.

If Citizens United was the kindling that sparked corporate and dark money entering elections, SpeechNow.org was jet fuel.

Background on the Case

SpeechNow.org was a conservative nonprofit formed to independently run ads supporting political candidates. They challenged FEC rules that limited how much money individuals could contribute to political committees, arguing that these restrictions violated their First Amendment rights to free speech. Though the case was filed before the Citizens United decision, by the time the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in March 2010, Citizens United had been decided just two months earlier. Citing that precedent, the court held that contribution limits to independent expenditure-only groups were unconstitutional. The court also ruled that groups like SpeechNow.org must register as political action committees per federal law. SpeechNow.org became the first ever Super PAC.

What Changed After SpeechNow.org?

Here’s what happened when the rules changed and the billionaires moved in. Between the 2008 and 2012 election cycles, independent political expenditures skyrocketed from approximately $144 million to over $1 billion.

The results were immediate and staggering.

Source: OpenSecrets.org

If current trends continue, outside political spending in the 2028 election cycle could reach $6 billion, setting yet another record, and tightening the grip of concentrated wealth on American democracy.

Connection to the Rise of Authoritarianism

Citizens United and its lesser-known sibling, SpeechNow.org, didn’t just tip the scales, they kicked down the doors to a new era of political spending. Billionaires and corporate interests were quick to seize the opportunity, throwing open the floodgates and pouring unprecedented sums into Super PACs and dark money groups. The almost immediate and seismic power shift fueled polarization, supercharged misinformation, eroded public trust, and created even more avenues for the ultra-wealthy to entrench their influence and profit from policy.

With limitless resources and political influence, ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations effectively own public opinion, drown out opposition, and embolden authoritarian-minded politicians who prioritize donor loyalist interests over public accountability.

Factors Contributing to Authoritarianism Post-Citizens United:

• Increased political extremism funded by wealthy interests.

• Growth of misinformation and propaganda via dark money groups.

• Suppression of grassroots activism due to financial dominance.

Campaign Finance Best Practices

Overturning Citizens United alone won’t be enough to break big money’s grip on our political system. That decision lit the match, but decades of legal and legislative erosion have allowed corporate and billionaire influence to engulf our elections. To truly restore transparency, accountability, and public trust, we can’t simply reverse the damage, we need to rebuild from the ground up.

Successful reforms in other democracies:

🇨🇦 Canada

Spending caps and donation limits.

Canada enforces strict caps on how much parties and candidates can spend, and bans corporate and union donations altogether. Individuals can give only in small amounts. Public subsidies help offset campaign costs, reducing dependence on private money.

• No corporate or union donations

• Individual donation limits

• Partial public reimbursement for campaign costs

🇬🇧 United Kingdom

Ban ads and shorten campaigns.

In the UK, elections last just a few weeks, not years. Candidates and parties operate under legal spending caps, and no one can buy TV or radio ads. Instead, all parties get free airtime, keeping the focus on policies, not who can pay for the most coverage.

• No paid political TV or radio advertising

• 4–6 week campaign periods

• Strict legal spending caps

🇫🇷 France

Reimburse all viable candidates.

France provides public funding to major parties based on prior election performance and also reimburses costs for candidates who reach minimum vote thresholds. This approach helps break the two-party system while maintaining high accountability.

• Full or partial public financing for parties

• Reimbursement for qualified candidates

• Strict spending limits

🇩🇪 Germany

Ban anonymous donations.

Germany blends public subsidies with transparency requirements. All donations above a modest threshold must be disclosed, and anonymous contributions are not allowed. Public funding is tied to actual voter support to ensure fairness.

• No anonymous donations over €500

• Mandatory disclosure of large contributions

• Public subsidies tied to vote share

Reclaiming Our Power

Across our feeds the temperature is rising. We, the American people are outraged, and a good number of us are not about to let this frog-in-boiling-water situation be the downfall of American democracy. The path to overcoming authoritarianism begins with remembering democracy belongs to us, not just those with a golden boot on our faces.

Overturning Citizens United is possible, necessary, and urgent.