RepealCitizensUnited

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) is a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court decision issued on January 21, 2010, that fundamentally reshaped American campaign finance law. At its core, the ruling held that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations (including for-profit companies, nonprofits, and unions) to spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds on independent political expenditures—ads, films, or other communications that support or oppose candidates, as long as those expenditures are not coordinated with the candidates themselves.

The Case and the Ruling

The dispute began in 2008 when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, produced a 90-minute documentary film titled Hillary: The Movie that sharply criticized then-Senator Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries. The group wanted to make the film available via video-on-demand and run TV ads promoting it within 30 days of the primaries and 60 days of the general election. Federal law at the time—the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, also known as McCain-Feingold)—prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds for “electioneering communications” (broadcast ads that mentioned a federal candidate) during those blackout periods. It also banned such independent expenditures outright under older provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, struck down those restrictions. The majority reasoned that political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment, and the government cannot suppress speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. They explicitly overruled two prior precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed bans on corporate political spending to prevent “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth,” and parts of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that upheld similar limits. Crucially, the Court concluded that independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption—only direct contributions (which remained banned for corporations) could create quid-pro-quo problems. Disclosure requirements were left intact, as the justices believed transparency would let voters judge the messages for themselves.

The decision did not allow corporations or unions to give money directly to candidates or parties (those limits stayed in place). It also did not invent “Super PACs”—that came weeks later in a lower-court case (SpeechNow.org v. FEC) that applied Citizens United’s logic to allow groups to raise and spend unlimited funds independently.

SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010) is the lower-court decision that directly created the modern Super PAC — the vehicle that has come to symbolize unlimited big-money spending in U.S. elections. While Citizens United provided the constitutional foundation, SpeechNow supplied the practical blueprint.

Background and Timeline

February 2008: SpeechNow.org, a nonprofit organized by David Keating and others (with legal support from the Institute for Justice and Center for Competitive Politics), filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The group wanted to raise money from individuals and spend it solely on independent expenditures — ads and communications expressly advocating for or against federal candidates, without coordinating with those candidates.
At the time, federal law (under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and earlier rules) treated any group making more than $1,000 in such expenditures as a “political committee.” Political committees faced strict contribution limits: individuals could give no more than $5,000 per year, and the group faced other caps and registration burdens.
The case was stayed pending the outcome of Citizens United.

January 21, 2010: Supreme Court decides Citizens United, holding that corporations (and by extension unions) have a First Amendment right to make unlimited independent expenditures. The Court emphasized that independent spending does not create corruption or its appearance.

Just six days later (January 27, 2010): Oral arguments in SpeechNow before the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc).

March 26, 2010: The D.C. Circuit issues its unanimous ruling (9-0 on the key points).

What the Court Ruled

The D.C. Circuit applied Citizens United’s logic and struck down contribution limits as applied to independent-expenditure-only groups:

Contribution limits are unconstitutional: Individuals can now give unlimited amounts to a group that spends only on independent expenditures. The court reasoned that if independent expenditures themselves cannot corrupt (per Citizens United), then contributions to groups making only those expenditures also cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption.
Disclosure and registration requirements upheld: The group must still register as a political committee, report its donors (for contributions over $200), and comply with FEC filing rules. This is why Super PACs disclose donors (unlike pure dark money 501(c)(4) groups), even though the ultimate source can sometimes be obscured through layered transfers.

In May 2010, the district court entered a final judgment permanently enjoining the FEC from enforcing the contribution limits against SpeechNow.org and similar groups.

How This Single Decision Invented Super PACs

Before SpeechNow: Even after Citizens United, traditional PACs were still limited in what they could raise (e.g., $5,000 per individual). Corporations could now spend independently, but pooling massive individual money into one loud voice was still constrained.
After SpeechNow: Groups could openly advertise: “We accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and others — and we will spend every dollar on independent ads supporting/opposing candidates.” These became known as Super PACs (or “independent expenditure-only committees”).
The first Super PACs registered shortly after the ruling. By the 2010 midterms and especially the 2012 presidential cycle, they were a major force. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums from almost any source, as long as they do not coordinate with candidates or parties.

Why Critics Argue It “Changed Everything” Even More Than Citizens United

Citizens United freed corporations to spend their own treasury money independently.
SpeechNow freed billionaires and mega-donors to pour unlimited personal funds into satellite campaign organizations that function as shadow campaigns. This enabled the era of $100-million+ individual checks to single Super PACs.
It created an asymmetry: Direct contributions to candidates remain capped (currently $3,300 per election for individuals), but contributions to the groups that run the most influential ads, data operations, and get-out-the-vote efforts have no ceiling.
Some legal scholars argue SpeechNow stretched Citizens United by applying its “no corruption” holding from expenditures to contributions — a distinction the Supreme Court had long treated differently under Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The Obama Justice Department chose not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In short, Citizens United removed the corporate spending ban and declared independent money non-corrupting. SpeechNow.org v. FEC, decided just two months later, operationalized that principle into the Super PAC structure that now dominates outside spending. Together they dismantled the pre-2010 contribution limits on independent groups and ushered in the era of billion-dollar electioneering by a small number of ultra-wealthy donors.

How It Singlehandedly Changed Everything

Before Citizens United, U.S. campaign finance had been governed by a century-old framework (dating back to the Tillman Act of 1907 and strengthened in the 1970s) designed to limit the role of big aggregated wealth—especially from corporations—in elections. Independent spending by corporations and unions from their general treasuries was heavily restricted or banned in many contexts. Outside spending in the 2008 election cycle (the last full cycle before the ruling) totaled roughly $144–$574 million across all federal races.

In the years since, the landscape transformed dramatically:

Explosion of outside spending: Independent expenditures by outside groups skyrocketed more than 28-fold. By the 2024 presidential cycle, outside spending reached approximately $4.2–$4.5 billion, with Super PACs alone accounting for over $4.1 billion. This is not gradual growth—it is a structural shift that made outside money a dominant force, often rivaling or exceeding what candidates and parties themselves spent directly in many races.
Birth of the Super PAC era: These groups can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and other entities and spend unlimited amounts on ads, voter outreach, and issue advocacy—as long as they claim “independence.” In practice, they have become the primary vehicles for mega-donors. In 2024, a handful of billionaires (e.g., Elon Musk alone reportedly directed a quarter-billion dollars into pro-Trump efforts) and ultra-wealthy families funneled hundreds of millions through them. The top 1% of donors now provide the overwhelming majority of Super PAC funding.
Rise of dark money: Citizens United opened the floodgates for 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofits and other vehicles that do not have to disclose their donors. Dark money spending jumped from less than $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion (and in some estimates $1.9 billion) in the 2024 cycle alone. Super PACs routinely receive massive transfers from these shadowy groups—one Democratic-aligned Super PAC, for example, reported a single $205 million dark-money infusion. Voters see the ads but have no idea who is truly behind them.
Megadonor dominance and inequality of voice: A tiny cadre of ultra-wealthy individuals now accounts for a staggering share of election money. In 2024, just 100 top donors contributed nearly $2.6 billion (about 20% of total outside spending in some analyses), while small donors ($200 or less) were eclipsed. Billionaire spending in federal elections has multiplied by factors of 160+ since 2010. This has shifted power away from ordinary voters and toward a handful of the richest Americans and corporate interests.
Broader democratic effects: Public trust has eroded. Polls consistently show large majorities across parties believe big money creates corruption or its appearance. The U.S. has been downgraded in some global democracy indexes partly because of perceived “pay-to-play” dynamics. Outside groups now routinely run operations (ads, door-knocking, data) that blur the line between “independent” and candidate-driven activity.

Critics argue the ruling “singlehandedly” upended the system because it removed the corporate spending ban that had been in place for decades, triggering a cascade of follow-on decisions, Super PAC creation, and loopholes. Defenders call it a free-speech victory that simply removed government censorship of political expression. Either way, the pre- and post-2010 numbers tell the story: what was once a tightly regulated system became one where unlimited, often undisclosed money from the wealthiest sources floods elections.

This is the factual foundation on which this article is built. The decision did not “create” corruption in the narrow quid-pro-quo sense the Court envisioned. Still, it removed the guardrails that had kept aggregated corporate and billionaire wealth in check—leading to the very outcomes (record spending, secrecy, and concentrated influence) that fuel the case for repeal via constitutional amendment.

CITIZENS UNITED

THE PARTISAN ANOMALY

Something IS fascinating here—Citizens United creates a bizarre ideological twist where Democrats, at least superficially, seem to channel a principle Republicans often champion: limiting centralized power and protecting the little guy’s voice. Meanwhile, Republicans, who’d typically wave that flag, defend a ruling that amplifies big money. A FAIRLY OBVIOUS observation that this is the only policy where this flip happens is sharp—it’s not just daunting, it’s a signal there’s a deeper fault line we are brushing up against. Let’s dig beyond the surface to what we might be missing, focusing on why this movement feels DOA and what could shift the partisan dynamic, especially among Republicans.

Is Democrat Support Superficial Gaslighting, or Are They Truly Behind Repealing Citizens United?

Superficial Gaslighting: Possibly, yeah. The party’s loud opposition—think Steve Cohen’s stance, H.J.Res. 54, or the 20 state resolutions—looks principled: “Overturn Citizens United to save democracy!” But actions don’t always match the rhetoric. Here’s why it could be a front:

They Play the Game Too: Democrats decry dark money, yet their campaigns feast on it. In 2020, Democratic-aligned Super PACs (e.g., Priorities USA, American Bridge) outspent GOP ones—$1.5 billion vs. $1.3 billion, per OpenSecrets. Biden’s haul included $200 million in dark money, dwarfing Trump’s $130 million. They’re not exactly starving under Citizens United.
Selective Outrage: They push transparency laws (e.g., DISCLOSE Act) that hit harder at GOP-friendly groups (NRA, Koch network) while sparing their own (unions, nonprofits like Planned Parenthood). It’s less about dismantling the system and more about tilting it.
No Real Sacrifice: Supporting repeal sounds noble, but it’s low-risk. An amendment needs 38 states—unreachable with 19 red states dug in—so they can cheerlead without losing the cash pipeline. Cohen’s the exception, but even he’s got Super PAC backing.

So, gaslighting? Maybe not outright deception, but there’s a whiff of performative virtue. They benefit too much to genuinely want the plug pulled—more on that below.

Do Democrats Benefit More Than Republicans?

It’s a toss-up, but they might edge out ahead in raw dollars and strategic flexibility. Here’s the breakdown:

Democrats’ Advantage

Super PAC Haul: Post-Citizens United, Dem-aligned Super PACs have consistently raised more in recent cycles. 2020’s $1.5 billion dwarfed the GOP’s $1.3 billion, and 2022 midterms saw Senate Majority PAC (D) drop $300 million to hold the Senate. Hollywood, tech (e.g., Silicon Valley), and unions fuel this—sectors less shy about big checks than the GOP’s oil or gun lobbies.
Dark Money Edge: Dems lean on 501(c)(4) nonprofits (e.g., League of Conservation Voters, Sixteen Thirty Fund), which funneled $660 million in 2020 alone, per OpenSecrets. These groups cloak donors better than the GOP’s more visible players (e.g., Club for Growth). X posts (e.g., @TheTNHoller, 2024) flag this opacity as a Dem specialty.
Small-Donor Myth: They tout grassroots donors (e.g., ActBlue’s $4 billion in 2020), but that’s icing—Super PACs and dark money are the cake. It’s a dual-track system: optics of “people power” plus elite cash Republicans can’t match as smoothly.

Republicans’ Advantage

Targeted Lobbies: GOP benefits from concentrated industries—NRA, fossil fuels, pharma—that align with their base and pour cash efficiently (e.g., $5M for Bill Lee’s vouchers). Dems’ broader coalition (unions, tech, enviros) spreads the wealth thinner.
State-Level Lock: Red states like Tennessee give the GOP a structural edge—19 opposers vs. 20 Dem-leaning supporters. They don’t need to outspend; they just hold the line.
Base Loyalty: GOP voters don’t care as much about dark money (yet), so their leaders face less pressure to reform, keeping the system cozy.

Who Wins Bigger?

Dems might rake in more cash—2020’s $200M dark money gap is telling—but Republicans wield it with less hypocrisy heat. Dems benefit more in absolute terms (dollars and flexibility), but the GOP’s entrenched power makes it a wash. Both thrive; neither’s hurting enough to ditch it.

The Surface Stuff You Already See

Democrats’ Stance: They frame Citizens United as a corporate takeover of democracy, drowning out voters with dark money and Super PACs. It’s a populist pitch—aligning with “power to the people”—even if their own campaigns (e.g., Cohen’s union-backed Super PACs) still play the game.
Republicans’ Stance: They defend it as free speech, a core constitutional value, arguing that restricting spending limits expression. Yet, their reliance on the ruling’s benefits (e.g., NRA, Koch network) ties them to elite interests, clashing with their small-government rhetoric.
Why It’s DOA in TN: With only Cohen on board and 11 Republicans benefiting from the status quo, the math’s brutal. Partisan loyalty and donor dependence lock it in.

There’s more under the hood. This isn’t just about money or party lines; it’s about incentives, identity, and a hidden paradox in Republican ideology. Here’s what you might be missing:

1. The Free Speech Trap: Republicans’ Ideological Straitjacket

What’s Happening: Republicans have doubled down on Citizens United as a free speech hill to die on. The ruling’s framed as a win for individual liberty—corporations and unions are “people” exercising rights. To challenge it risks betraying a core tenet of modern conservatism, even if the outcome (billionaires and lobbies dominating elections) contradicts their anti-elite, pro-working-class branding (e.g., Trump’s “drain the swamp”).
Why It Matters: This creates a cognitive dissonance you’re sensing. Democrats can co-opt the “voice of the people” argument because they’re less tethered to absolutist free speech dogma. Republicans can’t pivot without unraveling their ideological identity—or admitting the “speech” mostly benefits their donors, not their base.
Missing Piece: The GOP’s locked into a narrative where reversing Citizens United isn’t just policy reform—it’s heresy. Rallying them means reframing repeal as enhancing free speech (e.g., amplifying voters over CEOs), but that’s a tough sell when their base equates regulation with tyranny.

2. The Donor Class Veto: Follow the Money, Not the Principles

What’s Happening: Republicans might preach limited government, but their campaigns run on unlimited cash from lobbies, Super PACs, and dark money (e.g., AFP’s $5M for Lee’s vouchers). Donors like the Kochs or NRA aren’t just supporters—they’re gatekeepers. Any GOP figure pushing repeal risks losing funding and primaries to better-funded rivals.
Why It Matters: This explains the DOA vibe. Principles take a backseat when survival is at stake. Democrats can afford to criticize Citizens United because their donor base (unions, trial lawyers) is less threatened by transparency laws—they’re already public. Republicans face an existential threat from opaque mega-donors.
Missing Piece: You’re underestimating how much the donor class, not voters, dictates GOP policy. Partisan Republicans won’t budge unless you can neutralize that veto—say, by proving repeal won’t dry up their war chests (e.g., grassroots small-donor models like Trump’s 2016 haul).

3. The Partisan Trust Deficit: Democrats Own the Issue

What’s Happening: Citizens United repeal is coded as a Democratic cause (e.g., Cohen’s stance, H.J.Res. 54). Republicans see it as a Trojan horse for progressive power grabs—think campaign finance laws that could disproportionately hit conservative groups (e.g., NRA vs. unions). Even if the principle aligns with their values, the messenger kills the message.
Why It Matters: This is why it’s the “only” flip you notice. On other issues (taxes, guns), Republicans can claim the populist high ground without ceding it to Dems. Here, distrust poisons any crossover. Your non-partisan lens spots the logic, but partisan Republicans smell a trap.
Missing Piece: The movement’s DOA because it lacks a bipartisan face. To rally Republicans, you’d need a credible conservative champion—someone like a Rand Paul type—who could pitch repeal as a middle-class win, not a liberal plot. Without that, it’s dead on tribal lines.

4. The Base’s Blind Spot: Voters Don’t Feel the Pain (Yet)

What’s Happening: Tennessee’s GOP base—rural, conservative—doesn’t see Citizens United as their fight. They’re mad about inflation, immigration, or “woke” culture, not dark money. Lee’s voucher push, Blackburn’s NRA ties, or Ogles’ Trumpism resonate more than abstract campaign finance reform.
Why It Matters: Republicans don’t feel pressure to flip because their voters aren’t demanding it. Democrats can rally their base on this (urban, educated liberals hate corporate overreach), but GOP voters shrug—partly because the system’s opacity hides its impact.
Missing Piece: You’re missing the disconnect between elite influence and grassroots priorities. To flip partisan Republicans, you’d need to make Citizens United visceral—tie it to a betrayal they feel (e.g., “Your senator’s bought by Big Pharma, not you”). Until then, it’s an insider issue, not a populist one.

Why This Is the “Only” Flip

It’s unique. On taxes, guns, or healthcare, Republicans can align principles (liberty, self-reliance) with policy and donor interests. Here, the principle (voter sovereignty) clashes with the money (corporate dominance), and money wins. Democrats exploit that gap, but their ownership of the issue alienates GOP allies. It’s a perfect storm: ideological rigidity, donor control, tribalism, and voter apathy.

Starting local and rallying state-by-state could crack open some doors that the national deadlock keeps shut. Let’s break it down: I’ll list all 50 states and their stances on #RepealCitizensUnited, based on what’s known up to April 9, 2025. This’ll give you a map of where allies stand, where resistance festers, and where the undecideds might be swayed.

The data comes from public records, state resolutions, legislative actions, and grassroots efforts tracked by groups like Public Citizen and posts on X—though I’ll flag where info’s thin or speculative. States typically signal support through resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, often spurred by citizen pressure. Resistance or silence usually ties to GOP dominance or donor influence, as we’ve unpacked before. Here’s the full rundown:

States Supporting #RepealCitizensUnited (20 Confirmed)

These states have formally called for an amendment, per legislative resolutions or majority lawmaker letters, as of the latest updates (e.g., Public Citizen’s 2019 list and subsequent actions):

California – Passed a resolution in 2012; strong grassroots push.
Colorado – Ballot measure (I-132) passed in 2012 with 74% voter support.
Connecticut – The majority of lawmakers signed a letter in 2014.
Delaware – The majority of the legislature signed a letter in 2013.
Hawaii – Resolution passed in 2010, one of the first post-ruling.
Illinois – Resolution passed in 2012.
Maine – Resolution passed in 2013.
Maryland – The majority of the legislature signed a letter in 2013.
Massachusetts – Resolution passed in 2012.
Montana – Ballot measure (I-166) passed in 2012 with 75% support.
Nevada – Resolution passed in 2017.
New Hampshire – Resolution passed in 2019, per X posts.
New Jersey – Resolution passed in 2012.
New Mexico – Resolution passed in 2016.
New York – Multiple letters from lawmakers across party caucuses, 2014.
Oregon – Resolution passed in 2013.
Rhode Island – Resolution passed in 2012.
Vermont – Resolution passed in 2012; first state to act.
Washington – Resolution passed in 2016.
West Virginia – Resolution passed in 2014.

Notes: These 20 are locked in—mostly blue or purple states with active progressive movements. They represent about 40% of the U.S., a solid base but far from the 34 needed for an Article V convention or the 38 for ratification.

States Opposing or Unlikely to Support #RepealCitizensUnited (19 Estimated)

These states haven’t acted and, based on political leanings (GOP control, donor reliance), likely resist repeal:

Alabama – No action; deep-red state, heavy corporate influence.
Alaska – No stance; libertarian streak but GOP-led, oil money dominant.
Arizona – No resolution; GOP legislature, though some reform talk fizzled.
Arkansas – No action; red state, donor-driven politics.
Florida – No resolution; GOP stronghold, corporate lobbying heavy.
Georgia – No stance; red state, business interests prevail.
Idaho – No action; conservative, free-speech absolutist leanings.
Indiana – No resolution; GOP control, industry-friendly.
Kansas – No stance; red state, Koch influence notable.
Kentucky – No action; GOP-led, coal and pharma ties.
Louisiana – No resolution; red state, oil and gas lobbying.
Mississippi – No stance; deep-red, minimal reform push.
Missouri – No action; GOP dominance, corporate-friendly.
Nebraska – No resolution; red state, agribusiness influence.
North Dakota – No stance; GOP-led, energy sector sway.
Oklahoma – No action; red state, oil money entrenched.
South Carolina – No resolution; conservative, donor-reliant.
South Dakota – No stance; red state, low reform appetite.
Texas – No action; GOP powerhouse, mega-donors thrive post-Citizens United.

Notes: These 19 are mostly red states where GOP principles (free speech, deregulation) and donor cash (e.g., energy, agribusiness) align with keeping Citizens United. Opposition isn’t always explicit—just inertia or hostility to reform.

States Undecided or Unclear on #RepealCitizensUnited (11 Remaining)

These states lack clear action or data, making them wild cards—some lean red, some swing:

Iowa – No resolution; grassroots murmurs (2015), but GOP shift stalled it.
Michigan – No stance; purple state, no legislative push despite union presence.
Minnesota – No action since 2016 talks; DFL control but silent lately.
North Carolina – No resolution; swing state, GOP legislature blocks progress.
Ohio – No stance; red-leaning, some reform chatter died out.
Pennsylvania – No resolution; purple state, no unified push despite activism.
Tennessee – No action; red state, your focus—Gov. Lee and the delegation resist (see prior chats).
Utah – No stance; GOP-led, Mormon influence, low reform noise.
Virginia – No resolution; blue now, but pre-2019 GOP control left it dormant.
Wisconsin – No action on Citizens United; focused on balanced budget convention instead.
Wyoming – No stance; red state, sparse population, no reform traction.

Notes: These 11 are your battlegrounds. Some (MI, MN, PA, VA) have progressive pockets that could tip with pressure; others (TN, OH, NC) lean resistant but aren’t fully closed off. Data’s patchy here—some might’ve acted post-2019, but it’s not widely documented.

The Big Picture

Supporters: 20 states (40%)—a coalition of blue strongholds and a few surprises (MT, WV).
Opposers: 19 states (38%)—red wall, donor-dependent, ideologically rigid.
Undecided: 11 states (22%)—mix of swing states and quiet reds, your potential targets.
Tennessee’s Role: As you’ve seen, TN’s leadership (Lee, Blackburn, etc.) leans hard against repeal, tied to dark money and lobbies. Local momentum’s your uphill fight.

Red State Mindset: The 19 opposers and some undecideds (e.g., TN, TX) see Citizens United as a win for “liberty” over “government overreach.” Reframe repeal as a populist gut punch—e.g., “Wall Street’s drowning your vote”—not a regulatory fix.
Swing State Apathy: MI, PA, NC, etc., have mixed politics but no urgency. Tie it to local pain—e.g., “Dark money’s why your roads suck”—to wake up voters.
Grassroots Gap: The 20 supporters moved because citizens marched (e.g., CO, MT ballots). The other 30 lack that fire. TN’s your test—can you spark a petition or town hall push?
GOP Donor Lock: Even in undecideds like OH or WI, big money vetoes reform. You’d need a rogue Republican (a Burchett?) to flip the script.

The Explosion of Unlimited Spending and the Death of Equal Voice

Fifteen years after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the floodgates have burst open: outside spending in federal elections rocketed from just $144 million in 2008 to more than $4.2 billion in 2024—an increase of over 28 times—while Super PAC spending alone surged past $4.1 billion. A tiny cadre of billionaires now dominates the process. In the 2024 cycle, just 100 ultra-wealthy donors poured a record $2.6 billion into elections—nearly 20 percent of total spending—while one individual funneled a quarter-billion dollars into pro-Trump Super PACs for ads, door-knocking, and voter outreach. This isn’t “free speech.” It’s a megaphone reserved for the richest, drowning out the voices of millions of ordinary Americans who can only afford $5 or $10 donations. The Founders designed our republic so that We the People govern—not a handful of oligarchs who buy access and policy. Repealing Citizens United is the only way to slam those floodgates shut and restore one person, one vote.

It’s time to take our republic back from the billionaires—repeal Citizens United NOW and let the people, not the checkbooks, decide!

The Rise of Dark Money and the Erosion of Transparency

Citizens United didn’t just unleash spending—it supercharged secrecy. Dark money groups—nonprofits that hide their donors—have funneled at least $4.3 billion into federal elections since the ruling, with a staggering $1.9 billion in the 2024 cycle alone. Super PACs now routinely launder hundreds of millions through these shadow organizations: one Democratic-aligned Super PAC reported a single $205 million transfer from an affiliated dark money group in 2024, leaving voters completely in the dark about who was really pulling the strings. When anonymous billionaires and corporations can spend unlimited sums without ever revealing their identities, elected officials inevitably prioritize their unseen benefactors over the public interest. This is textbook corruption by another name. Repealing Citizens United would restore disclosure requirements, force the sunlight back in, and end the era when shadowy interests rig the game from behind the curtain.

Enough is enough—demand full transparency and repeal Citizens United today! Our government belongs to the people, not the anonymous bankrollers who think they can buy it in secret!

The Appearance of Corruption and the Collapse of Public Trust

The Supreme Court claimed unlimited independent expenditures would never create “corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Reality has delivered the opposite verdict. Polling shows 79 percent of Americans now believe big independent spending gives rise to corruption or its appearance, while 80 percent say big donors have too much sway in Congress and ordinary constituents have too little. Public satisfaction with U.S. democracy has plunged to historic lows, with the country now rated a “flawed democracy” in part because voters see a pay-to-play system. Real-world cases confirm the rot: in Ohio, dark money funneled through a 501(c)(4) group delivered a $60 million scheme that secured legislative favors in exchange for political support—precisely the kind of influence Citizens United insisted couldn’t happen. When nearly three-quarters of Republicans and Democrats alike want limits on big money, the evidence is overwhelming: Citizens United has poisoned trust, turned elections into auctions, and made government feel for sale. A constitutional amendment to repeal it is the proven path to restore integrity and faith in self-government.

This is our moment—rise and repeal Citizens United! Let’s purge the corruption, silence the dark money, and return power where it belongs: to the American people. Our Republic is not for sale—fight for it!

Triage Post Awakening