John,

In the 14 years since Citizens United, history has not been kind to the Supreme Court’s decision.

And with each passing year, it's only become clearer that we need stronger policies to regulate our campaign finance system.

2024 marks the fourth presidential election cycle since the Citizens United ruling, in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporate political spending that is not coordinated with a candidate or their campaign — known as “independent expenditures”— cannot be restricted, which, along with the Speechnow.org ruling that same year, led to the creation of super PACs.

In 2024 alone, super PACs and outside groups have already spent more than $320 million to influence the presidential primary (John, it’s only April 4th).

In the ruling, the court concluded that such expenditures, “including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Despite the court’s assurances, prosecutors have since found multiple examples of money meant to support independent expenditures that they alleged played a role in actual corruption.

Our analysis revealed that since the Citizens United ruling, the Justice Department has brought charges in at least four cases that involve allegations related to quid pro quo bribery and money tied to independent expenditures – the very scenario that the Citizens United court cast doubt upon. Independent expenditures indeed *could* be used by special interests to bribe government officials.

The Citizens United majority also dismissed the idea that buying influence and access was a form of corruption that could justify restrictions, proclaiming that “the fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.”

But our analysis proves otherwise. In fact, it highlights how super PACs are a vector for using large contributions to seek access to and influence with elected officials.

• In one case, a Mexican businessman who “sought to buy political influence” in San Diego funneled close to $600,000 in illegal foreign funds into the city’s 2012 election, including by making straw donations to super PACs.
• In another case, when former Rudy Giuliani associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, along with several others, were indicted for conspiring to make conduit contributions and to violate the ban on foreign donations, the Justice Department alleged that Parnas and Fruman made contributions in the name of another to two super PACs in order to “obtain access to exclusive political events and gain influence with politicians.”

The examples above only address cases where prosecutors believed they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the law had been violated, which means they almost certainly represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the corruption at play in our political system.

Here at CREW, we’re going to continue our investigative work to uncover the dark money in our politics, and put an end to it. But we can’t do without your help.

Donate to CREW today and support our investigative and legal work to uncover and expose dark money in politics →

Thank you,

Adam Rappaport
General Counsel
CREW