In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential and controversial rulings in modern political history: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The 5–4 decision dramatically altered the legal landscape of campaign finance, opening the door for unlimited spending by corporations, unions, and certain nonprofit organizations, potentially giving them disproportionate influence in election campaigning.
Hailed by some as a victory for free expression and condemned by others as unleashing a torrent of special interest cash into politics, Citizens United has continued to define the shape of campaign financing for the past 15 years.
The Origins of the Case
The lawsuit began with a film. In 2008, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization led by David Bossie, produced “Hillary: The Movie,” a 90-minute documentary highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air the film on cable television through video-on-demand services within 30 days of the Democratic primary elections and planned to run promotional advertisements.
However, federal campaign finance law under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) prohibited corporations from using general treasury funds for “electioneering communications” within specific timeframes before elections.
Fearing civil and criminal penalties, Citizens United sought a court declaration that their film and promotional materials were exempt from these restrictions.
The organization argued that because the documentary didn’t explicitly tell viewers how to vote, it shouldn’t be classified as campaign advocacy subject to corporate spending limits. A federal district court disagreed, ruling unanimously that the film could only be interpreted as telling viewers that Clinton was “unfit for office” and encouraging them to vote against her.
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling
Citizens United appealed, and the Supreme Court ultimately agreed to hear the case, raising questions not just about this particular film, but about the broader constitutionality of limiting corporate and union election expenditures.
In their decision, the justices went far beyond the narrow question in the original case. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito, the Court ruled that restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
The majority opinion overturned two significant precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). Justice Kennedy wrote that political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, warned that the decision represented “a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government.”
The ruling did not lift limits on direct contributions to candidates; those caps remain in place. But it cleared the way for unlimited spending on independent political advocacy, so long as it is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
The majority decision made two key assumptions: that independent political spending wouldn’t lead to corruption because it would be transparent, and that it would remain truly separate from candidate campaigns. Both assumptions have proven incorrect in practice.
Transforming the Political Landscape
The decision’s impact has been dramatic and far-reaching. Outside spending in federal elections skyrocketed from $730 million at the time of the ruling to $4.5 billion in 2024. The ruling enabled the creation of “super PACs”—political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts as long as they maintain nominal (sometimes fictional) independence from campaigns.
Each election cycle since 2010 has seen a new record in campaign spending, much of it “outside money”—funds raised and spent by organizations not directly affiliated with candidates or parties. The influence of wealthy donors has only grown, with some estimates suggesting that the vast majority of outside election funding comes from a small handful of deep-pocketed interests.
Perhaps more concerning to democracy advocates is the rise of “dark money” — political spending where the funding source remains secret. Dark money expenditures increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to over $1 billion in the 2024 presidential election alone.
The 2024 election exemplified Citizens United‘s influence. Billionaire-backed super PACs helped close substantial fundraising gaps, with groups like those funded by Elon Musk taking on core campaign functions including voter outreach operations, while supposedly remaining independent. This concentration of political influence among ultra-wealthy donors represents a fusion of private wealth and political power unseen since the late 19th century.
Current Political Implications
Today, Citizens United remains deeply unpopular with the American public. A Washington Post – ABC News poll found that 80% of Americans opposed the Citizens United ruling, Including 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, and 81% of independents.
The ruling has created what some campaign finance experts call a “corruption bomb” effect, where wealthy individuals can effectively buy political influence through seemingly independent expenditures. Recent legislative efforts, including the proposed Abolish Super PACs Act introduced in Congress, aim to restore some limits on political spending, though prospects for passage remain unlikely.
The Citizens United decision continues to shape American politics in 2025. Campaigns increasingly rely on outside groups to fund negative advertising, which can deepen political polarization. With no upper limit on independent expenditures, candidates may feel beholden to the interests of big-money backers who can tip the scales in tight races.
Supporters of the ruling argue that it promotes free speech, enabling more voices to be heard in the political arena. They contend that limiting corporate or union spending would amount to government censorship. Opponents counter that equating money with speech effectively drowns out the voices of ordinary voters who cannot match the spending power of corporations or billionaires.
Some reform advocates are pursuing constitutional amendments to overturn Citizens United, though such efforts face steep political and procedural hurdles. Others push for enhanced disclosure laws to ensure voters know who is funding political messages.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, Citizens United‘s legacy continues to define the relationship between money and political power. It raises fundamental questions about whether democratic governance can function effectively when political speech is increasingly dominated by the ultra-wealthy. Should the First Amendment protect unlimited political spending by corporations and unions, or does such spending distort democracy by giving disproportionate influence to the wealthiest? The Court’s ruling in Citizens United has transformed the way American elections are fought and the consequences of that decision are still unfolding.
Is Fairness a Moral Principle or Just a Feeling?
By John Turley
On August 25, 2025
In Commentary
We live in a culture obsessed with “fairness.” If something doesn’t go our way, we brand it “unfair.” If it does, we call it “fair.” But fairness is inherently subjective: what’s fair to you may feel wildly unfair to me.
When Fairness First Mattered
I first noticed this in my kids. Whenever I told them “No,” they’d cry, “That’s not fair!”— but could only shrug when I asked why. Most of us can’t define fairness any better than a six-year-old: it’s simply a catch-all for “I don’t like this.”
Lately, “unfair” has become a socially acceptable way to say “I disagree.” It even carries moral weight—as if fairness were an absolute like good or evil. But these concepts aren’t easy to pin down.
Is it fair that some people are born with musical talent, while others struggle to clap on beat? Is it fair that some are naturally athletic, while others can’t run a mile without seeing stars? (If it were up to me, I’d call it unfair, since I have neither musical nor athletic ability.)
The Real Inequities
Life is rife with natural inequalities. Those born with an advantage deem it “fair” they benefit; those born without cry “unfair” and demand special considerations. And while I sympathize, everyone roots for the underdog, handouts aren’t the same as opportunity.
The Grumpy Doc’s Take
Here’s what I tell my kids (and myself): There is no absolute fairness. You can’t craft a definition that pleases everyone. Things simply are the way they are:
To me, fairness is best understood as this: Everyone should have an equal opportunity to work for what they want. That doesn’t mean we all start in the same place. It does mean we should try to ensure that those who’ve been historically disadvantaged get an even chance—one that accounts for past inequities. And to those who insist you’ve never enjoyed special treatment: what’s your golf handicap?
Embrace the Inequalities
Do I know how to guarantee equal opportunity? No. Others who are far smarter than me will have to figure that out. Am I upset that they’re smarter than me? Not at all. If I were the smartest person around, we’d all be in trouble.
In the end, fairness isn’t a universal yardstick. It’s an invitation to participate: to work, compete, and strive. Because if life were perfectly fair, we’d never need to improve it.