SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
john paul stevens
'We Must End Citizens United,' Progressives Say as Ruling Turns 15 Amid 'Growing Oligarchy'
"As long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, our democracy will remain broken," said one campaigner.
Jan 21, 2025
As President Donald Trump triumphantly returned to the White House thanks in part to a tsunami of campaign cash from oligarchs and corporate interests, democracy defenders on Tuesday marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that unleashed such spending by urging action to overturn the decision.
In a nation where corporations and moneyed interests already wielded disproportionate power and influence over elections, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissionreversed campaign finance restrictions dating back to the era of Gilded Age robber barons. The ruling affirmed that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment that government cannot restrict. The decision ushered in the era of super PACs—which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns—and secret spending on elections with so-called "dark money."
In his Citizens Uniteddissent, Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that "in a functioning democracy the public must have faith that its representatives owe their positions to the people, not to the corporations with the deepest pockets," and warned that the ruling "will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."
"Over the last 15 years, the American people have watched with disgust as both parties welcomed the unfettered sale of our democracy and elections to the highest bidders."
Since then, nearly $20 billion has been spent on U.S. presidential elections and more than $53 billion on congressional races, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Spending on 2024 congressional races was double 2010 levels, while presidential campaign contributions were more than 50% higher in 2024 than in 2008, the last election before Citizens United.
Ultrawealthy megadonors played a critical role in Trump's 2024 victory. Some of them have been rewarded with Cabinet nominations and key appointments in "an administration dominated by billionaires and corporate interests," as Americans for Tax Fairness executive director David Kass described it.
"Fifteen years ago today, the Supreme Court gave billionaires and special interests unprecedented power to rig our democracy with its disastrous Citizens United decision. Yesterday, Donald Trump was sworn in, ushering in the wealthiest administration in American history," Tiffany Muller, president of the advocacy group End Citizens United, said on social media Tuesday. "Citizens United paved the way for Trump II."
Alexandra Rojas, executive director of the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats, said in a statement that "over the last 15 years, the American people have watched with disgust as both parties welcomed the unfettered sale of our democracy and elections to the highest bidders."
"Citizens United legalized economic inequality as a political tool for the wealthy to exploit," Rojas added. "A decade-and-a-half later, working-class people cannot afford to run for office and everyday voters' voices are drowned out by billionaire-funded super PACs. As long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, our democracy will remain broken."
Justice Democrats noted: "Yesterday, Donald Trump was inaugurated as president in what was maybe one of the most openly corporate-sponsored inaugurations in American history. In just one row seated in front of Trump's Cabinet members, four men had the combined wealth of just under $1 trillion."
"Billionaires and corporations are paying their way to gain influence in the Trump administration and they can expect a massive return on their investment, at the expense of everyday people," the group added.
It's no surprise, say critics, that corporate profits and plutocrat wealth have soared to new heights during the Citizens United era.
"Citizens United allowed corporations to buy candidates and elections. Citizens United legalized political bribery. Citizens United let wealth dominate our elections," the consumer watchdog Public Citizen said Tuesday. "Overturn Citizens United."
Positing that "Citizens United turned our democracy into an auction," Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on social media Tuesday that "our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people—not corporations and billionaire elites. We must #EndCitizensUnited and put the American people back in charge."
Democratic lawmakers have introduced numerous bills, including proposed constitutional amendments, to reverse Citizens United. While Congress has not been able or willing to address the issue, 22 states and the District of Columbia, as well as more than 800 local governments across the country, have passed measures calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling, according to Public Citizen.
"This is a moment to
usher in a new era in the Democratic Party that rejects the growing oligarchy in this country by rejecting the unprecedented level of billionaire and corporate spending that has a stranglehold over both parties," Justice Democrats said on Tuesday. "Now is the moment to tirelessly center working people and expose the big money corruption that Citizens United has brought onto both parties. By rejecting their influence, working-class people may finally have the promise of a party that actually serves them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Memo Reveals How Sandra Day O'Connor Helped Get George W. Bush to the White House
The right-wing justice sought to influence the opinions of others on the high court even before they heard arguments in Bush v. Gore.
May 03, 2023
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor played a greater role than previously known in handing the highly contentious 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, a document released Tuesday by the Library of Congress revealed.
It has long been known that O'Connor—who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and was the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court—wanted Bush to win the 2000 election, at least in part because of her right-wing views; her admiration for his father, former President George H. W. Bush; and because she wanted to retire after a Republican president nominated her replacement.
However, the newly released documents—part of a trove of former Justice John Paul Stevens' papers—include a four-page memo O'Connor sent to her colleagueson December 10, 2000, even before they heard arguments in Bush v. Gore. Her memo laid the groundwork for the controversial 5-4 ruling that stopped Florida's court-ordered recount in a too-close-to-call contest between Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore and gave the presidency to the Republican Texas governor.
In her memo, O'Connor attacked the unanimous November 21, 2000 Florida Supreme Court decision that the results of manual ballot recounts in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties must be included in the final state tally, while giving the three counties five days to certify their results.
"Before there was 2020 there was 2000."
During that period, Bush's legal team appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court while self-described "dirty trickster" Matt Schlapp and future seven-count felon Roger Stone led an effort to fly hundreds of paid operatives to Florida to harass and intimidate Miami-Dade officials—the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot"—in a bid to thwart their court-ordered work.
"I am concerned that the Florida Supreme Court transgressed the lines of authority drawn by Article II of the federal Constitution in substantially changing the state Legislature's statutory scheme for the appointment of presidential electors," O'Connor wrote.
"The Florida Supreme Court provided no uniform, statewide method for identifying and separating the undervotes," she noted, a reference to instances when voting machines could not read ballots.
\u201cBefore there was 2020 there was 2000 ....\n\nhttps://t.co/8gHDBXXdgK\u201d— Jocelyn Benson (@Jocelyn Benson) 1683072858
"Accordingly, there was no guarantee that those ballots deemed undervotes had not been previously tabulated," O'Connor asserted. "More importantly, the court failed to provide any standard more specific than the 'intent of the voter' standard to govern this statewide undervote recount. Therefore, each individual county was left to devise its own standards."
O'Connor noted that the Florida Legislature "has created a detailed, if not perfectly crafted statutory scheme that provides for the appointment of presidential electors by direct election," and that "the Legislature has designated the secretary of state as the 'chief election officer.'"
Florida's secretary of state at the time, Katherine Harris, was not only a Republican, she also co-chaired Bush's campaign in the state. On November 26, 2000 Harris declared Bush the winner in Florida by 537 votes, even though there were counties still tallying ballots.
Ignoring this obvious conflict of interest, O'Connor said the Florida Supreme Court "disregarded the secretary of state's delegated duty to exercise her discretion to determine whether to accept the state's late returns" and whether a manual recount requested by Gore was warranted.
Gore had asked for recounts in four heavily Democratic counties amid drama over dimpled, pregnant, and hanging chads; butterfly and caterpillar ballots; write-in votes; overcounts; undercounts; and a bewildering barrage of strange new terms. Some political commentators have argued that Gore's failure to request a statewide manual recount may have been a fatal miscalculation.
\u201cA reminder that the Republicans successfully stole a presidential election 23 years ago...and their hackish Justices on the Supreme Court played a key role in their doing so. https://t.co/2qkSr2svmt\u201d— @Ben_Alpers@mastodon.online \ud83d\uddfd (@@Ben_Alpers@mastodon.online \ud83d\uddfd) 1683070110
The day after O'Connor circulated her memo, Justice Anthony Kennedy, another Reagan appointee and frequent swing vote, wrote to right-wing Chief Justice William Rehnquist endorsing her "very sound approach."
Rehnquist—who was appointed by Republican former President Richard Nixon—was a proponent of what is now called the independent state legislature theory (ISLT), the fringe right-wing notion that state lawmakers alone can regulate federal elections. Hard-right Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the five votes for Bush, also embraced the dubious theory.
Prominent purveyors of former President Donald Trump's "Big Lie" that the 2020 presidential election was "stolen" have cited ISLT when pushing state lawmakers to help overturn President Joe Biden's Electoral College victory. Thomas' wife Ginni Thomas—who in 2000 solicited resumes for positions in the presumptive Bush administration before her husband cast his decisive vote in Bush v. Gore—unsuccessfully pressed Arizona state lawmakers to invoke ISLT in service of Trump's ill-fated effort to reverse his 2020 loss.
Notably, Bush's legal team in Bush v. Gore included current right-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Moore v. Harper, a North Carolina voting rights case currently before the court, could decide the legal validity of ISLT.
\u201cOne member of George W. Bush's legal team was especially enthusiastic about the "independent state legislature" theory: Brett Kavanaugh. \n\nHere he is endorsing it in 2000. \n\nNow Kavanaugh gets a chance to write it into law. Talk about a long game. https://t.co/VlnfRdeCy6\u201d— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1670424929
On December 12, 2000 the justices ruled in a 7-2 per curiam opinion that Florida's court-ordered recount must be stopped on equal protection grounds, and 5-4 that there was no other way to recount all of the contested votes in a timely manner. Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas voted in favor of Bush, while Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and Stevens dissented.
In his stirring dissent, Stevens presciently noted that "although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judges as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Four out of the five justices who sided with Bush were accused of conflicts of interest: Rehnquist and O'Connor were septuagenarians who had stated their desire to retire during a Republican presidency—the latter reportedly exclaimed "this is terrible" in response to a TV news report showing Gore leading on election night; Thomas' wife was headhunting personnel for a potential Bush administration; and two of Scalia's sons worked for law firms representing Bush. None of the four justices recused themselves from Bush v. Gore. Bush later nominated Eugene Scalia for U.S. labor solicitor.
\u201cWhen I was a kid I really really looked up to the Supreme Court justices. We all learned how they get lifetime appointments to make sure they can\u2019t be influenced etc\u2026with Thomas, Alito, O\u2019Connor, Kavanaugh, and all\u2026I definitely don\u2019t feel the same way.\n\nhttps://t.co/6YZYqMFvAM\u201d— Yuh-Line Niou (@Yuh-Line Niou) 1683092690
O'Connor—who is now 93 years old—would come to have regrets, which she expressed years after her 2006 retirement. In 2013, she told the Chicago Tribune editorial board that Bush v. Gore "stirred up the public" and "gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation."
"It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue," she said. "Maybe the court should have said, 'We're not going to take it, goodbye.'"
There were other reasons why some commentators refer to the 2000 presidential election as "stolen." Chiefly, massive voter disenfranchisement resulting from racist policies of Republican Florida Gov. Jeb Bush—the GOP candidate's brother—played what one federal civil rights official called an "outcome-determinative" role in the state's, and therefore the nation's, results.
Scalia infamously dismissed his friend Bader Ginsburg's concerns over Black disenfranchisement as the "Al Sharpton Footnote," and habitually advised Americans disturbed by Bush v. Gore to "get over it."
\u201cThe article included extensive evidence that Ginsburg was right to be concerned. When Scalia died 2 years later, his obnoxious & dismissive Sharpton remark - which said a great deal about who he was - didn\u2019t make it into the many think pieces about his tenure on the Court.\u201d— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sherrilyn Ifill) 1683083845
However, it was ultimately the Supreme Court's cessation of the unfinished Florida recounts, and Gore's subsequent meek acquiescence "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy," that handed victory to Bush.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular