5 Years After Citizens United, Money Controls Politics More Than Ever

WASHINGTON — Five years ago this Wednesday, the Supreme Court overturned two decades of precedent in a bitterly divided 5-4 decision to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations and unions. It was the outcome of a case that began when the conservative nonprofit Citizens United, funded in part by corporate money, challenged regulation of a movie it had produced about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Intended to free independent groups to spend without constraint, the decision, along with a subsequent lower court ruling freeing individuals to spend unlimited amounts, has largely empowered forces closely tied to individual candidates and to the political parties themselves. It has, in effect, punctured an immense hole in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms that limited the raising and spending of contributions to the political parties.

An analysis of campaign finance data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that 40 percent of all reported, non-party outside spending since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling has come from groups with deep ties to political parties or spending to support just one candidate.

The growth of the unlimited money arms of the political parties has also led the parties to complain that they are starved of resources. This fueled the expansion of contribution limits to national party committees in the omnibus budget bill passed in December.

The launch of McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund illustrates the strength of the ongoing post-Citizens United trend toward the further centralization of unlimited money under the party structure. Meanwhile, it’s unlikely that any major 2016 presidential candidate would dare to run without a personal super PAC.

While the Citizens United decision may have empowered some otherwise less organized wealthy Americans, it has largely worked to bolster party operations and candidate campaigns. There is still little independence from the already entrenched political actors, even if these groups stay within the tight legal lines.

The Huffington Post