The Billionaire Problem in Politics
The Supreme Court’s Fatal Flaw - Why Citizens United Missed the Bigger Picture
The Unequal Reality of “Money Equals Speech”
One of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions of our lifetime, Citizens United v. FEC (2010), has fundamentally reshaped the political landscape in the United States. The Court’s majority opinion equated money with speech, declaring that independent expenditures by corporations, unions, and individuals are protected under the First Amendment. This ruling paved the way for the rise of Super PACs and an explosion of unlimited spending in elections. But as groundbreaking as this decision was, the Court completely missed a critical point: if money equals speech, then those with more money have more speech.
This concept strikes at the very heart of democracy, which is supposed to provide a level playing field where every voice matters equally. Instead, the Citizens United ruling institutionalized inequality by allowing the wealthy to dominate the political conversation. The dissenting justices in the case argued that independent expenditures could still create undue influence and corruption—a valid concern. However, they missed the larger, more foundational issue: unlimited spending skews democracy itself by drowning out the voices of those with fewer resources.
Let’s unpack why this is such a profound flaw in the Court’s reasoning.
Unequal Speech = Unequal Representation
If money equals speech, then the loudest voices belong to those with the deepest pockets. This dynamic creates disproportionate influence for a small, wealthy elite over the political process. When billionaires and corporations can funnel millions of dollars into campaigns—whether through Super PACs, dark money groups, or direct lobbying—their interests take center stage. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens struggle to compete for attention in a system designed to amplify wealth over collective need.
For example, let’s consider the role of Super PACs. These organizations, made legal by the Citizens United decision and further solidified by SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010), allow for unlimited donations as long as their spending is "independent" of a candidate’s campaign. This independence, however, is often more theoretical than real. In practice, candidates and Super PACs align their messaging, strategies, and goals through public signals and shared consultants. The result? A political system where the voices of average voters are drowned out by the financial megaphones of a privileged few.
This imbalance directly undermines the principle of “one person, one vote,” replacing it with a de facto standard of “one dollar, one vote.” Democracy, in this framework, becomes less about collective decision-making and more about who can buy the most influence.
Democracy Relies on a Level Playing Field
The essence of democracy is the idea that all citizens have an equal voice in shaping their government. But when financial resources dictate the reach and impact of political speech, this ideal collapses. The wealthy can saturate airwaves, dominate digital platforms, and fund massive grassroots-looking campaigns that overshadow other perspectives. This creates a marketplace of ideas skewed toward those with money, leaving little room for alternative viewpoints or marginalized voices.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion dismissed this concern, arguing that independent expenditures do not corrupt candidates because they are not coordinated directly. Yet this ignores the reality of how influence operates. A candidate doesn’t need to explicitly coordinate with a Super PAC to feel beholden to a donor who spent millions on their behalf. This “indirect influence” is just as corrosive to democracy as outright quid pro quo corruption.
Dissenters’ Missed Opportunity
The dissenting justices in Citizens United raised compelling points about the potential for corruption and the erosion of public trust in the democratic process. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the minority, warned that unlimited spending by corporations and unions would lead to the perception that elections are "bought and sold." However, the dissent didn’t go far enough in highlighting the broader structural problem: the inherent inequality created by equating money with speech.
The dissent could have asked a fundamental question: If money equals speech, what happens to those who have less money? The answer is simple yet devastating. Their speech becomes drowned out, their influence diminished, and their role in democracy marginalized. This isn’t just a flaw in campaign finance law—it’s an affront to the very idea of democracy.
The Impact Today
Since Citizens United, we’ve seen the rise of a political system dominated by big money. In the 2020 election cycle, the top 10 donors contributed over $1.2 billion to campaigns, eclipsing the combined contributions of millions of small-dollar donors. Wealthy individuals like Miriam Adelson, Peter Thiel, and Elon Musk who donated tens of millions of dollars to support political candidates through Super PACs, have more influence over elections than entire communities of voters.
This reality erodes public trust in the system. When people believe their voices don’t matter because they can’t compete with billionaires, voter engagement declines. Cynicism replaces hope, and democracy suffers.
A Path Forward
To restore balance, we need reforms that prioritize political equality over financial power:
Overturn Citizens United: A constitutional amendment clarifying that money is not speech and corporations are not people would be a critical first step.
Public Financing of Elections: Matching small-dollar donations with public funds can amplify the voices of ordinary voters and reduce reliance on big donors.
Limit Super PACs and Dark Money: Stricter rules on independent expenditures and disclosure requirements can help mitigate the outsized influence of wealthy donors.
The Fight for Equal Speech
The Court’s decision in Citizens United fundamentally misunderstood the role of money in politics. By equating money with speech, it created a system where those with more money have more speech, and those without are left struggling to be heard. This isn’t just a theoretical problem; it’s a tangible threat to the principles of democracy.
If we believe in a government of, by, and for the people, we must confront this inequality head-on. The fight for equal speech isn’t just about campaign finance reform—it’s about reclaiming the promise of democracy itself.