Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

To engage young Americans in politics, we must end Citizens United

Opinion

To engage young Americans in politics, we must end Citizens United

"The only way to reclaim our democracy and create a political system that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people is by getting big money out of politics," argues Devin Hiett.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Hiett graduated in December with degrees in international studies and journalism from the University of Oklahoma. She is a volunteer at American Promise, which advocates for amending the Constitution to regulate the raising and spending of electoral campaign funds.

Younger generations are often berated for not turning out to vote at meaningful rates, and that criticism is not totally unwarranted. In the 2016 presidential race, people between 18 and 29 made up just 13 percent of the electorate. But rather than chastising Millennials and Gen Z for not voting, we need to focus on why they aren't showing up at the polls.

Ten years after one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever, the real answer should have become abundantly clear.

In the 2018 elections alone, special-interest spending exceeded $5.7 billion. The fossil fuel industry has invested more than $2 billion in the past two decades slandering sustainable climate legislation, and the National Rifle Association has spent more than $203 million on political activities since 1998. In comparison, only half of 1 percent of Americans donate more than $10,000 in any election.

The idea that young people don't vote because they are apathetic is a fallacy. Throughout history, many of the most influential activist movements around the world have been led by young people, and this momentum has accelerated in recent years.


In December, 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg made history when she became the youngest individual ever to be named Time magazine's Person of the Year. In 2018, students from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., led the movement advocating for gun control by lobbying their state lawmakers, meeting with President Trump and persuading billion-dollar companies to cut ties with the NRA.

Young people don't abstain from voting because of a lack of interest, or because they're unaware of the myriad issues plaguing our society. Recent polling of younger voters from the Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics found that when young people don't vote, it's largely because they believe their vote doesn't have the power to bring about meaningful change ― and they're right.

A study from Princeton University found that public opinion has a "near-zero" impact on public policy, meaning the number of Americans for or against any piece of legislation has no impact on the likelihood of Congress making it a law. So if voters aren't the ones influencing our democracy, what is?

The answer is money. Our political system is shaped almost entirely by the people and corporations who have the most of it.

Our democracy exists in a cycle of legalized corruption made possible by the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v FEC. In the 5-4 decision, the court ruled that unlimited political spending, by individuals or by corporations, is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. As a result, the 200 most politically active corporations in America have been free to spend almost $6 billion influencing the government through lobbying and campaign contributions over the past five years. This year's campaign cycle is projected to draw more than $10 billion in spending.

Our representatives are no longer accountable to us — their constituents — but rather to the corporations and wealthy donors who bankroll their campaigns. This is why the opinions of the bottom 90 percent of income earners in America have a "statistically non-significant impact" on legislation.

It's also why younger generations rightfully feel their votes are not going to create meaningful political change. The average millennial makes just $35,592 a year and has a net worth of less than $8,000. So, in a pay-to-play political system, our generation has the least influence of all.

The only way to reclaim our democracy and create a political system that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people is by getting big money out of politics. The most effective way to accomplish this is through the passage of a 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

I'm a member of an organization spearheading this vital cause — American Promise, a grassroots, cross-partisan nonprofit that organizes and empowers Americans from across the nation to advocate for amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United and allow Congress and the states to impose limits on corporate political spending.

For such an amendment to become part of the Constitution, it needs to be endorsed by two-thirds of Congress and ratified by 38 of the 50 states. So far, 20 states and more than 800 towns and cities — representing 46 percent of the population — have passed state and local resolutions calling on Congress to propose a 28th Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.

This kind of state-by-state grassroots resolution process has proven successful in the past. It's what built pressure on Congress to propose other amendments, including the 17th (popular-vote election of senators), the 19th (women's right to vote) and the 26th (lowering the voting age to 18).

If young voters want to see action on the issues they care about most — stopping climate change, reducing student loan debt, controlling the spread of guns and reforming immigration reform — we must address the root cause of congressional inaction by fighting to radically decrease the influence of big money in our political system. Until we accomplish that, we shouldn't expect Congress to accomplish much of anything we care about.

If we want young Americans to be engaged voters, we have to make their votes count by tackling legalized corruption. A 28th Amendment is our best hope of restoring our democracy, our environment, and our futures.

To support this movement, sign the Cause of Our Time Statement of Principle today.


Read More

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up shot of a Black woman's hands receiving a mail-in ballot to vote in a USA Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, or local election

An immigrant's perspective on why America's election debate over security vs. access is a false choice — and how USPS mail ballot rules fit in.

Jeremy Poland/Getty Images

Ballot Security and Voter Access Are Not Opposites: What the USPS Ballot Rule Gets Right

I came to the United States from India in 1982. In Indian elections, I watched officials check voter identity and mark a voter’s finger with indelible ink. Party representatives observed the process. The system was imperfect, as every large democracy is, but it sent a simple message: casting one vote is a serious civic act, and the process should make that clear.

When I later became an American citizen and cast my first ballot, the experience felt very different. A poll worker found my name on a list and handed me a ballot. In my precinct, there was no photo identification check. I was surprised—not because I expected voting to be difficult, but because I expected a system as consequential as an election to have clear, visible safeguards.

Keep ReadingShow less
A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

Uncontested elections are more common than you'd think. From open primaries to multi-member districts, here's what states like California and Alaska are doing to bring real competition back to the ballot — and what it'll take to change political culture, too.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

What America Can Do About Its Uncontested Elections

Politics nerds have many ideas about how to strengthen American democracy; however, few directly address silent elections. For example, ranked-choice voting does nothing to encourage more candidates to run if there are not enough. Term limits increase turnover, but even newcomers can frequently run uncontested in general elections if they have won competitive primaries.

Fortunately, the cause isn’t hopeless. For one, tightening campaign finance laws would put potential challengers on more even footing with corporate-backed politicians, encouraging more candidates to run. Independent redistricting would also help. The Cook Political Report, a poll aggregator, considers only 69 of America’s 435 House districts competitive. Fair redistricting means more competitive districts and therefore more contested elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans Vote In The 2024 Presidential Election

Voters cast their ballots on November 5, 2024 in Jefferson, New Hampshire.

John Tully/Getty Images

Non-Popular Vote Presidents: Conservatives’ Pathways for Abandoning Fiscal Responsibility

In political science and macroeconomic analysis, conservative administrations that win governance through the Electoral College without securing the national popular vote (historically exemplified by administrations like George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) navigate specific structural, ideological, and strategic pathways that often lead to the abandonment of traditional fiscal restraint.

Supply-Side Supremacy and "Starve the Beast"

Keep ReadingShow less