Corporate Citizenship: How Corporations Became the Electors of America

It is no secret that corporations and big donors are at the forefront of America’s political conflicts and major government decisions. With the upcoming presidential election, many are questioning how corporations have gained significant influence over every candidate’s platform. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a landmark campaign finance case from 2010 that focused on the constitutionality of certain campaign finance regulations under the guise of free speech, and it is the most recent legal case on the subject. The ruling on the case was quite controversial, opening doors for wealthy donors to abuse finance laws while diluting the political impact of average citizens. By reversing century-old restrictions, the judges' relaxation of FEC policy allowed corporations and other groups to donate unlimited funds to candidates, severely altering the balance of power in modern-day elections.

In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) debated how organizations could spend their money to advocate for a candidate. The plaintiff, Citizens United, argued that regulating a corporation’s political spending violated the First Amendment and free expression, citing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BRCA). Citizens United specifically highlighted Section 203 of the BRCA, which prevented corporations and labor unions from funding political communication from their treasuries. This argument had previously been discussed in McConnell v. FEC. McConnell v. FEC established the precedent that Section 203 did not violate the right to political speech, as it applied to corporate entities, not individuals. However, the majority opinion of Citizens United v. FEC reversed the precedent, arguing that free political speech is indispensable, regardless of whether the speaker is a corporation. They established that limits on independent expenditures, specifically communication-based support for a candidate, were unconstitutional. Most importantly, the majority judges assumed that “independent spending” cannot be corrupt and must be transparent, as established in Section 311 of the BRCA; two assumptions that have been disproven in subsequent years.

The Citizens United v. FEC decision allowed committees that specifically fund communication to receive unlimited contributions from corporations and unions, assuming that the advertising does not “formally coordinate” with the candidate. For example, political action committees, known as PACs, can donate directly to campaigns but must adhere to contribution limits. However, Speechnow.org v. FEC, a subsequent case built upon the arguments of Citizens United, argued that as long as a PAC did not donate their money directly to the candidate, they could receive an influx of unlimited donations. This decision ushered in the new era of super PACs. Super PACs afford both corporations and third-party groups the power of unlimited donations. These third-party groups take any entity’s money and donate the lump sum under their own name, meaning the original source of donations to those third parties is ambiguous.

In 2024, the top 1% of donors in super PACs accounted for 97.7% of their total funds, totaling more than 2 billion dollars of dark money. Dark money, or anonymous political spending meant to influence a voter, now comes from the smallest economic division of the country and severely overpowers the vote of the average American citizen. This anonymity feeds into corruption and the misleading use of funds by candidates. Recently, George Santos was accused of using his campaign funds for his personal expenses through hidden third parties, aided by a lack of disclosure regulations. Other cases include Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who used two Suburban Staples stores to route $20.7 million of campaign funds, and Crypto Lobbyist Michelle Bond, for her acquisition of unofficial campaign money from FTX donors. 

The bottom line is that the two assumptions made by the judges in the Citizens United v. FEC case were incorrect: Not only is “independent spending” never fully disclosed, but it is incredibly susceptible to corruption when it comes through third parties in large amounts. The deregulation caused by their decision has led corporations to control and completely shift how electoral funds are received. The argument that a corporation’s political spending should be treated as equally as an average citizen’s is misguided. Without regulation, their spending takes on a completely different form. While overturning the decision of Citizens United v. FEC is unlikely and unhelpful, stronger disclosure regulations are necessary. Furthermore, there must be a complete separation of candidates and their supporting super PACs to ensure that corruption is prevented. Only stronger regulation can restore the balance of corporate spending in elections, giving power back to the American citizen and reducing the influence of the top 1% in the country’s democratic process.

Navyaa Jain is a Sophomore studying Computer Science - Economics at Brown University. She can be reached at navyaa_jain@brown.edu.

Maia Eng is a junior at Brown University concentrating in International and Public Affairs. He is an editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at maia_lourdes_eng@brown.edu