Beyond Citizens Unitied
WASHINGTON – Ten years ago, an earthquake rumbled through this city and then beyond the Capital Beltway, sending shock waves into presidential politics and even into the state legislatures.
It changed the way candidates campaigned and almost certainly altered who won those campaigns. It spawned an important debate about the role of money in politics and perhaps an even more significant debate about the nature of free expression in a free society.
Few Supreme Court decisions have had the immediate effect on the structure of American civic life as Citizens United v. FEC, which set in motion substantial changes in how campaigns are financed, disrupted the power of the established parties, boosted the influence of individual donors making independent contributions and — surprise! — increased the power of labor unions at the expense of major corporations.
“Politics was always a money game,” said former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich, who now teaches at the University of California, Berkeley. “But after Citizens United, money had the potential of being a flood, and getting rid of it became far harder to do.”
In its wake, Citizens United has transformed individuals such as Sheldon Adelson of Las Vegas Sands (who made $122.3 million in contributions during the 2018 midterm congressional elections) and two current presidential candidates — former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who made $95 million in 2018 contributions, and entrepreneur Tom Steyer, who made $72.8 million in contributions — into the new power brokers of American politics.
But it isn’t only the big funders. Overall, individuals contributed more than $294 million to campaigns in 2014, four years after the Citizens United decision. That amount jumped to $1.1 billion two years later, representing two out of every three dollars in the election that year.
The ruling has undermined the power and influence of party campaign committees, as recently as a decade ago major providers of campaign funding and, just as significant, important sources of influence on the content of House and Senate races and the selection of candidates for those positions. With independent contributions by individuals far surpassing the amounts provided by the two parties, candidates no longer are subject to the discipline of party leaders, leading to far more populist candidates in House races and the diminution of party discipline.
“The post-citizens United regulatory environment has clearly led to a change in the sources of campaign money, with a substantial share of funding now coming from entities that are not subject to contribution limits,” according to a report by the Committee for Economic Development of the business-oriented Conference Board. “This is primarily due to the rise of Super PACS, which have become the primary recipients of unlimited contributions.”
Criticism of Citizens United has only grown since the ruling was handed down a decade ago.
“The rise in the number of individual donors and the concentration of giving among a select group of them,” according to a Bipartisan Policy Center study by scholars affiliated with the New York University and Stanford law schools, “reflects a broader trend in the campaign finance system toward participation by individuals and ideological organizations chiefly funded by individuals, as opposed to other types or economic interests.”
That’s the new reality, created by the Supreme Court — but mastered by individual donors who increasingly are displacing the power of the ancient political parties.
David M. Shribman is the former executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-gazette. Follow him on Twitter at Shribmanpg.