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
mark pocan
'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
Despite 100% Pentagon Audit Failure Rate, House Passes $883.7 Billion NDAA
"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex," said Defense Spending Reduction Caucus co-chairs.
Dec 11, 2024
Despite the Pentagon's repeated failures to pass audits and various alarming policies, 81 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted with 200 Republicans on Wednesday to advance a $883.7 billion annual defense package.
The Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025, unveiled by congressional negotiators this past Saturday, still needs approval from the Senate, which is expected to vote next week. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Wednesday that he plans to vote no and spoke out against the military-industrial complex.
The push to pass the NDAA comes as this congressional session winds down and after the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) announced last month that it had failed yet another audit—which several lawmakers highlighted after the Wednesday vote.
Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairs and co-founders of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, said in a joint statement, "Time and time again, Congress seems to be able to find the funds necessary to line the pockets of defense contractors while neglecting the problems everyday Americans face here at home."
"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex with even more unaccountable funds," they continued. "After a seventh failed audit in a row, it's disappointing that our amendment to hold the Pentagon accountable by penalizing the DOD's budget by 0.5% for each failed audit was stripped out of the final bill. It's time Congress demanded accountability from the Pentagon."
"While we're glad many of the poison pill riders that were included in the House-passed version were ultimately removed from the final bill, the bill does include a ban on access to medically necessary healthcare for transgender children of service members, which will force service members to choose between serving their country and getting their children the care they need," the pair noted. "The final bill also failed to expand coverage for fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), for service members regardless of whether their infertility is service-connected."
Several of the 124 House Democrats who voted against the NDAA cited those "culture war" policies, in addition to concerns about how the Pentagon spends massive amounts of money that could go toward improving lives across the country.
"Once again, Congress has passed a massive military authorization bill that prioritizes endless military spending over the critical needs of American families. This year's NDAA designates $900 billion for military spending," said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), noting the audit failures. "While I recognize the long-overdue 14.5% raise for our lowest-ranking enlisted personnel is important, this bill remains flawed. The bloated military budget continues to take away crucial funding from programs that could help millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet."
Taking aim at the GOP's push to deny gender-affirming care through TRICARE, the congresswoman said that "I cannot support a bill that continues unnecessary military spending while also attacking the rights and healthcare of transgender youth, and for that reason, I voted NO."
As Omar, a leading critic of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, also pointed out: "The NDAA includes a provision that blocks the Pentagon from using data on casualties and deaths from the Gaza Ministry of Health or any sources relying on those statistics. This is an alarming erasure of the suffering of the Palestinian people, ignoring the human toll of ongoing violence."
Israel—which receives billions of dollars in annual armed aid from the United States—faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court last month issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The NDAA includes over $627 million in provisions for Israel.
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who voted against the NDAA, directed attention to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), set to be run by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
"How do we know that DOGE is not a good-faith effort to address wasted funding and unaccountable government? The NDAA passed today," Ramirez said. "Republicans overwhelmingly supported the $883.7 billion authorization bill even though the Pentagon just failed its seventh audit in a row."
"Billions of dollars go to make defense corporations and their investors, including Members of Congress, rich while Americans go hungry, families are crushed by debt, and bombs we fund kill children in Gaza," she added. "No one who voted for this bill can credibly suggest that they care about government waste."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who also opposed the NDAA, wrote in a Tuesday opinion piece for MSNBC that he looks forward to working with DOGE "to reduce waste and fraud at the Pentagon, while strongly opposing any cuts to programs likeSocial Security, Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."
"We should make defense contracting more competitive, helping small and medium-sized businesses to compete for Defense Department projects," Khanna argued. "The Defense Department also needs better acquisition oversight. Defense contractors have gotten away with overcharging the Pentagon and ripping off taxpayers for too long."
"Another area where we can work with DOGE is reducing the billions being spent to maintain excess military property and facilities domestically and abroad," he suggested. "Finally, DOGE can also cut the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile program."
The congressman, who is expected to run for president in 2028, concluded that "American taxpayers want and deserve the best return on their investment. Let's put politics aside and work with DOGE to reduce wasteful defense spending. And let's invest instead in domestic manufacturing, good-paying jobs, and a modern national security strategy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Defeat of Megamerger, Sanders Thanks Khan for Taking On 'Corporate Greed'
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said the Vermont senator.
Dec 11, 2024
Praise for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan continued to pour in on Wednesday after a pair of judges blocked the merger of grocery chains Kroger and Albertsons following challenges by the FTC and state attorneys general.
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Let me thank FTC Chair Lina Khan for successfully fighting this merger and standing up to corporate greed."
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) also welcomed the rulings and sent "a big thank you to Lina Khan and her team at the FTC."
Their comments on Wednesday followed similar applause from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal as well as groups including the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and Groundwork Collaborative.
Khan addressed the win during a Tuesday stream with political commentator Hasan Piker, noting that "this is the first time that the FTC has ever sought to block a merger not just because it's gonna be bad for consumers, but also because it's gonna be bad for workers."
Khan, an appointee of outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden, has won praise from progressives for taking on not only grocery giants and other companies trying to build monopolies but also Big Pharma and Big Tech.
Sanders recently called her "the best FTC chair in modern history" and AELP earlier this year published a document detailing how, under Khan's leadership, the agency "has entered a new era of more effective, modern, and democratic enforcement to better protect consumers, workers, and independent businesses."
Examples included in the AELP roundup include Khan's "crackdown on deceptive 'junk fees,'" a ban on noncompete clauses that's being challenged in court, a historic lawsuit against Amazon.com, and a "click-to-cancel" rule that requires sellers to "make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."
However, the new era of the FTC is set to soon come to an end. Since President-elect Donald Trump's victory last month, speculation has been building that he would replace Khan with someone who would do the bidding of big business. Amid celebrations of the rulings against the Kroger-Albertsons merger on Tuesday, the Republican announced Andrew Ferguson as his pick for chair.
As Common Dreamsreported earlier Wednesday, Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel, said that elevating Ferguson, who already sits on the FTC, to chair, "is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Although the agency is expected to be friendlier to mergers under the next Trump administration, Albertsons responded to the Tuesday rulings by bailing on the $24.6 billion deal and suing Kroger for billions of dollars on Wednesday, rather than appealing or moving to in-house FTC hearings.
That move could reflect industry fears of U.S. courts that are willing to block major mergers, as The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen pointed out after the federal court decision on Tuesday.
"The important thing here is not that Biden's enforcers blocked a merger... it's that courts are increasingly comfortable with merger enforcement," he said. "States can sue under the Sherman Act, and they will. The real change to track is in the judiciary. Wall Street, take note."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular