The Impact of Citizens United on American Politics

In March 2025, Anders Åslund took to Twitter to voice concerns about the state of corruption in U.S. politics, pinpointing the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Åslund argues that the ruling, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has paved the way for unlimited dark money to flood into American political campaigns. This influx of undisclosed funds, he claims, poses a significant threat to the integrity of the democratic process, as it allows foreign interests—including those from Russia, China, and Gulf nations—to influence U.S. politics without accountability.

Understanding the Citizens United Ruling

The Citizens United decision fundamentally changed the landscape of campaign finance in the United States. Prior to this ruling, there were strict limits on contributions to political campaigns from corporations and unions. However, the Supreme Court’s verdict declared that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This opened the floodgates for corporations and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advocacy and advertising, often without revealing their sources of funding.

The Role of Dark Money

"Dark money" refers to the funds used for political purposes by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. After the Citizens United ruling, the rise of super PACs (Political Action Committees) became one of the most significant consequences. These entities can raise unlimited sums of money from individuals, corporations, and unions, and spend it to advocate for or against political candidates, all while keeping their donors hidden. This lack of transparency raises serious questions about the motivations behind the funding and the potential for foreign interference in U.S. elections.

The Argument for Reversal

Åslund’s assertion that the U.S. has legalized corruption hinges on the belief that the Citizens United decision has undermined the democratic principle of fair representation. He argues that as long as this ruling remains intact, the political landscape will be increasingly dominated by a small number of wealthy individuals and corporations, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens.

Reversing the Citizens United decision would require a Supreme Court ruling or a constitutional amendment, both of which are challenging prospects. However, advocates for campaign finance reform are increasingly vocal about the need for change, arguing that restoring limits on political spending is essential for a healthy democracy.

The Threat of Foreign Influence

One of the most alarming aspects of the Citizens United ruling, as highlighted by Åslund, is the potential for foreign entities to exert influence over American elections. The decision effectively allows foreign governments and organizations to contribute unlimited resources to political campaigns without revealing their identities. This raises ethical and security concerns, particularly in the context of rising global tensions and the increasing sophistication of foreign interference in elections.

The role of dark money in American politics not only impacts elections but also shapes policy decisions. When politicians are beholden to undisclosed donors, they may prioritize the interests of these entities over their constituents. This creates a system where the average voter feels disenfranchised and powerless, leading to widespread disillusionment with the political process.

Public Response and Advocacy

In the wake of the Citizens United ruling, there has been a growing movement advocating for campaign finance reform. Grassroots organizations, political activists, and concerned citizens are calling for transparency and accountability in political funding. Efforts include lobbying for legislation that increases disclosure requirements for political donations and pushing for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

Public awareness of the implications of dark money has also increased, with many voters expressing concern over the influence of wealthy donors and foreign interests in their elections. This growing sentiment may play a crucial role in shaping future political campaigns and legislative initiatives aimed at reforming the campaign finance system.

The Role of the Supreme Court

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion in the Citizens United case, has been a focal point in discussions about campaign finance reform. Critics argue that his interpretation of the First Amendment has prioritized corporate interests over democratic integrity. As long as Roberts remains in his position, the possibility of reversing the Citizens United ruling may seem remote.

However, the composition of the Supreme Court can change over time, and shifts in political power could lead to new opportunities for reform. Advocates for campaign finance reform remain hopeful that future court decisions will prioritize the principles of transparency and accountability in political funding.

Moving Forward

The issues raised by Anders Åslund’s tweet highlight the urgent need for a reevaluation of campaign finance laws in the United States. The Citizens United ruling has had far-reaching consequences that continue to shape the political landscape. As concerns about corruption and foreign influence grow, so too does the call for action.

To ensure a healthy democracy, it is essential for lawmakers, activists, and citizens to come together in advocating for reforms that restore integrity to the electoral process. Whether through legislative efforts or public pressure, the fight against dark money in politics is crucial for protecting the democratic values that underpin the United States.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate surrounding the Citizens United ruling and its impact on American politics remains a pressing issue. As highlighted by Anders Åslund, the legalization of dark money presents significant challenges to democracy and governance in the U.S. Reversing the Citizens United decision may be a daunting task, but it is vital for restoring public trust and ensuring that every citizen’s voice is heard. The fight for campaign finance reform is not just about money in politics; it is about preserving the integrity of democracy itself.

US legalized corruption cannot be cured unless John Roberts’s verdict from 2010 on Citizens United is reversed.
That verdict allows unlimited amounts of dark money from anybody not identified in US politics, welcoming Russian, Chinese & Gulf funding.
Roberts is the key culprit. https://t.co/jaNS74F4lW

— Anders Åslund (@anders_aslund) March 30, 2025

US legalized corruption cannot be cured unless John Roberts’s verdict from 2010 on Citizens United is reversed

The phrase “US legalized corruption” might sound extreme, but many argue it’s an accurate reflection of the current political landscape. At the heart of this issue is a landmark Supreme Court verdict from 2010: the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This ruling fundamentally changed the way money flows in American politics, allowing for virtually unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals, often with no obligation to disclose their identities. This verdict has been labeled a catalyst for the rise of what is referred to as ‘dark money’ in politics, and many believe it has opened the floodgates for foreign influence in U.S. elections.

Understanding the Citizens United Verdict

In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court held that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. This means that corporations and unions have the right to spend unlimited sums of money to advocate for or against political candidates. Critics of the ruling argue that this decision has led to a significant imbalance in political influence, where wealthy individuals and corporations can drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. This is where the term “dark money” becomes critical; it refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. As a result, money can flow into campaigns from anonymous sources, including foreign entities.

Dark Money and Its Implications

So, what does this mean for American democracy? The implications are vast and troubling. With dark money flooding into political campaigns, there’s a growing concern that foreign governments, including those from Russia, China, and Gulf states, could potentially exert undue influence on U.S. elections. The Brookings Institution highlights how this influx of undisclosed funds can distort the democratic process, making it difficult for voters to make informed decisions and hold elected officials accountable.

John Roberts: The Key Culprit?

Anders Åslund, a prominent economist and political expert, has pointed fingers at Chief Justice John Roberts, suggesting he is a key culprit in the perpetuation of this legalized corruption. Following the Citizens United decision, Roberts has been criticized for his stance on campaign finance laws, which many view as prioritizing corporate interests over democratic integrity. Some argue that reversing the Citizens United verdict is essential to curtailing the influence of dark money in politics and restoring faith in the electoral process.

The Call for Reversal

The call to reverse the Citizens United verdict is growing louder. Activists and politicians alike are advocating for reforms to campaign finance laws, emphasizing the need to ensure transparency and accountability in political spending. Groups like Common Cause work tirelessly to push for reforms that could limit the influence of dark money and restore the power of voters in the democratic process. They argue that without such changes, the cycle of corruption will only deepen, further eroding trust in government institutions.

Public Opinion on Campaign Finance Reform

Public sentiment appears to be shifting as well. A significant number of Americans are in favor of campaign finance reform. According to a Politico poll, a majority of voters believe that money has too much influence in politics and support measures that would increase transparency. This growing concern among the electorate might be a crucial factor in the push for legislative changes aimed at reversing the effects of the Citizens United ruling.

Impact on Future Elections

As we look toward future elections, the implications of the Citizens United verdict loom large. With dark money potentially swaying outcomes, the integrity of elections is at stake. Candidates who rely heavily on corporate and undisclosed donations may be less likely to prioritize the needs and wants of their constituents. This creates a cycle where the interests of the wealthy overshadow the voices of everyday Americans, leading to policies that may not reflect the public’s best interests.

What Needs to Change?

To tackle this issue, comprehensive reform is essential. Lawmakers must prioritize legislation that increases transparency in campaign financing and places limits on corporate spending in elections. Additionally, a grassroots movement advocating for changes to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of campaign finance laws could help shift the balance back toward a more equitable system. Engaging citizens in this dialogue is crucial, as the more aware people are about these issues, the more pressure they can put on their representatives to act.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

The conversation surrounding US legalized corruption and the impact of the Citizens United ruling is critical for the future of American democracy. As the wave of dark money continues to rise, it’s essential for citizens to remain informed and active in advocating for change. Whether it’s through supporting organizations fighting for campaign finance reform or voicing concerns to elected officials, every little action counts. The responsibility lies with all of us to ensure that our democratic processes remain fair, transparent, and representative of the people’s will.