Citizens United did not cause money to influence politics. Personally, I think we should overturn Citizens United. Money is not speech. But money influencing politics existed before Citizens United.

People should have the right to spend money on whatever they want. But politicians shouldn’t have the right to accept it. That’s a conflict of interest.

Money Influenced Politics Long Before Citizens United

And we had this conflict of interest long before Citizens United. Someone who wants to sponsor Mrs Bigshot’s campaign can hire her for a few years and give her a lavish salary before she runs for office. Or he can promise Mrs Bigshot a great career afterwards. Plus he can contribute to a PAC that opposes her opponent. And he can do favors for her relatives and friends. Citizens United just made it easier.

In the years before Citizens United, money already determined elections. The problem isn’t the court case.

All Citizens United did was make it easier for money to influence elections. And it gave anti-corruption organizations a new target to waste their time on instead of making progress on the real issues.

Citizens United was like a Moat around a Fortified Castle

The power of money in politics is a fortified castle. It’s fortified by the power of its money. Citizens United just added a moat. Yes, a moat makes it harder to storm a castle. But it’s still a fortified castle, fully capable of defending itself. And it has done that for many years.

If people could hold Congress accountable and communicate with each other effectively about issues, lots of campaign finance and anti-corruption legislation would pass very quickly. People want it.

The problem is obvious. People can’t hold Congress accountable. And they can’t communicate effectively with each other about issues.

The solution? Put your email address on our mailing list and we’ll tell you when we’re ready. Coming this Spring…