random-seed

randomseed.be » Citizens United

Citizens United

What is it and why do people criticize it?

Citizens United v. FEC (2010) held that corporate- and union‑spent independent political advertising is protected speech under the US First Amendment. Critics argue Citizens United opened the way to unlimited political influence for billionaires.

An argument could be made that this is a safeguard for free expression. However, an apparently common critical view of Citizens United is that it effectively legalizes a form of political bribery. By treating money as speech, corporations, wealthy individuals and special‑interest groups can pour unlimited funds into elections, creating a market for political influence that ordinary voters cannot match.

Much of this spending can be funneled through Super PACs and nonprofit entities that hide donor identities, reducing transparency and making it hard to trace who is buying political results. (See specifically the Brennan Center page linked below.)

Critics can say the decision expands the possibility of "quid-pro quo" corruption, where large donors expect favorable treatment in return for their financial support. Former President Jimmy Carter described the ruling as having "legalized bribery," arguing that candidates become dependent on rich contributors to fund their campaigns. (See the Guardian article, linked below.)

Because political power becomes tied to wealth, the decision apparently shifts the US political system toward an oligarchy, where policy is shaped more by affluent interests than by the broader electorate.

These concerns drive ongoing calls for reforms such as stricter disclosure requirements, public financing of campaigns, or even a constitutional amendment to overturn or limit the effects of Citizens United.

References