The Scale of the Problem
Since Citizens United v. FEC (2010), money in American politics has exploded:
$4.5B
Independent expenditures in 2024
$1.3B
"Dark money" from undisclosed sources
$2.7B
Spent through Super PACs
75%
Americans say it weakens democracy
Consequences
- 75% of Americans believe unlimited spending "makes our democracy weaker"
- Candidates spend increasing time fundraising rather than governing
- Policy outcomes track donor preferences more than public preferences
- Perception (and often reality) of corruption undermines trust in government
Constitutional Constraints
The Supreme Court has consistently held that spending money on political speech is protected by the First Amendment:
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Struck down expenditure limits while allowing contribution limits.
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Corporations and unions can make unlimited independent expenditures.
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)
Eliminated aggregate limits on individual contributions.
Implications
Most spending limits are unconstitutional under current doctrine. Reform must work within these constraints OR pursue constitutional amendment.
Reform Strategies Within Current Law
1. Disclosure Requirements
- Require "dark money" groups to disclose donors
- Real-time disclosure of large contributions
- "Stand by your ad" requirements for all political advertising
- Shareholders must be informed of corporate political spending
2. Public Financing Systems
- Small donor matching (e.g., 6:1 match for contributions under $200)
- Creates incentive for candidates to pursue small donors
- Reduces dependence on large contributors
- NYC has successful model matching small donations 8:1
3. Stronger Coordination Rules
- Super PACs are supposed to be "independent"—tighten rules against coordination
- Require genuine separation between campaigns and supporting PACs
- Enhanced enforcement by FEC
4. Shareholder Consent Requirements
- Require corporate boards to approve political spending
- Annual disclosure to shareholders
- Allow shareholders to opt out of political spending
Constitutional Amendment Strategy
The only way to fully address Citizens United is constitutional amendment:
Proposed Amendment Language (Citizens Over Corporations Amendment, 2025)
- Restores Congress's and states' authority to set reasonable limits on political spending
- Distinguishes between rights of natural persons and corporations
- Allows for public financing of campaigns
- Protects freedom of the press
Path to Ratification
- Requires 2/3 vote in both House and Senate, then ratification by 3/4 of states (38)
- OR Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of states (34)
- 22 states and hundreds of localities have voted to support amendment
- Building from the bottom up: local resolutions, state memorials, congressional support
Current Status
- Multiple amendment proposals introduced each Congress
- September 2025: Reps. Lee, Neguse, McGovern and Sen. Schiff introduced Citizens Over Corporations Amendment
- No amendment has come close to passage, but support continues building
NY-01 Specific Strategy
Short-term
- Support New York State's existing public financing program (enacted 2019 for state races)
- Advocate for program expansion and increased matching ratios
- Push for Suffolk County public financing for county elections
Medium-term
- Pass county/municipal disclosure ordinances for local political spending
- Support state legislation strengthening campaign finance enforcement
- Build coalition for state-level anti-corruption reforms
Long-term
- Suffolk County resolution supporting constitutional amendment
- NY State memorial calling for constitutional convention on campaign finance
- Congressional support for amendment from NY-01 representative