Citizens United Decision Continues to Threaten Voter Transparency in 2024 Elections
TL/DR –
The article discusses the impact of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, which struck down a prohibition on corporate independent expenditures, thereby enabling unlimited amounts of campaign spending. The increase in the use of Super PACs, which can receive unlimited contributions and can spend unlimited amounts to influence federal elections, has led to a lack of transparency regarding the sources of campaign funding and potential illegal coordination between outside groups and political candidates. The author suggests that Congress can mitigate these effects by approving legislation that strengthens disclosure requirements, addresses dysfunction at the FEC, and cracks down on illegal coordination.
US Supreme Court Decision Threatens Voter Access to Campaign Funding Details
Voters today face limitations in discerning which affluent special interests use massive funds to manipulate government decisions and influence their votes. Reflecting on the 2024 elections, the consequences of a decade-old US Supreme Court decision still pose a significant threat to this fundamental right.
In the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Jan 21, 2010, the Court abolished a ban on corporate independent expenditures. This has since empowered corporations and outside groups to infinitely finance political campaigns.
The Court preserved some disclosure provisions from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in Citizens United, arguing that timely disclosure would curb the domination of politics by wealthy special interests as voters could see the funders of political ads. The Court assumed that such unlimited spending would not promote corruption as it would be “independent”.
However, it is evident that voters lack sufficient information about actual sources of campaign spending and this so-called independent spending is often deliberately coordinated. This has resulted in a campaign finance system where the voices of ordinary Americans are drowned out by unlimited secret spending by wealthy special interests.
The growing use of super PACs has contributed to this issue. Super PACs can receive unlimited contributions from almost any non-foreign source and spend limitless amounts to influence federal elections. While they are theoretically required to be transparent about their money sources, this transparency is undermined when super PACs report contributions from secretly funded “dark money” groups.
Notably, this lack of transparency is a bipartisan issue, with major super PACs from both parties receiving tens of millions of dollars from elusive groups. Furthermore, campaign spending by corporations and other outside groups has surged by nearly 900% between 2008 and 2016. In 2020, total election spending reached a staggering $14.4 billion, with more than $1 billion in dark money spent.
It’s illegal for outside groups to coordinate election spending with candidates or political parties, yet many continue to do so due to the FEC’s failure to crack down on this. This practice further undermines the Court’s assumption in Citizens United that unlimited campaign spending would be conducted independently.
For example, the super PAC “Carly for America” established by Carly Fiorina supporters in the run-up to the 2016 presidential primary, assisted in campaign events, blurring the lines between the super PAC and the official campaign team. This case isn’t unique; super PACs are commonly established by close former aides of candidates, often contracting with the same consultants as the campaigns they support.
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has filed complaints against several Democratic and Republican-affiliated candidates and groups for violating illegal coordination laws post the Citizens United ruling.
During the 2024 election cycle, the Citizens United decision facilitated record-breaking campaign spending, including significant amounts of dark money spending, often coordinated by candidates and their super PACs in innovative ways.
One way to alleviate the negative impacts of this ruling is for Congress to implement stronger disclosure and trace-back requirements. Addressing dysfunction at the FEC to make the agency more equipped to deal with illegal coordination could also protect voters’ right to know who is influencing their vote with big money.
To amplify voters’ voices in our democracy, we need genuine transparency about election spending to prevent politicians from receiving unlimited hidden money from wealthy special interests.
—
Read More US Political News