Twelve years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, with the majority arguing that unlimited political spending from independent groups — even from powerful corporations and megadonors — would not have a corrupting influence on those in office. So long as prompt disclosure of spending was provided, they argued, we would have the information needed to make informed decisions.
Do you think they got it right?
Our campaign finance landscape today is a nationwide patchwork filled with oversights and loopholes that dark money and outside spending groups use to further their interests. This complex structure allows for unlimited sums of money to flow into U.S. elections, some disclosed and increasingly not.
Outside Spending has Exploded since Citizens United
Just this week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, a case which argues that elected officials should be able to raise more money to pay themselves back post-election for loans they made to their own campaign prior to their election.
The potential for corruption between ostensibly non-coordinating super PACs and politicians is clear. With over a decade of evidence, and amid deep partisan divisions in Congress, we must fight back against the erosion of transparency and accountability in campaign finance.
OpenSecrets is revealing the corrosion in the campaign finance landscape, shining a light on the worst offenders and building public awareness around the influence of secret money on the electorate.
