Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

The Committee on House Administration met on the 15th Anniversary of the SCOTUS’ decision Citizens United v. FEC to discuss the implications of billionaires backing Trump’s recent campaign and now presidency.

Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

The Committee on House Administration meets on the 15th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United v. FEC.

Medill News Service / Samanta Habashy

WASHINGTON – On the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and one day after President Trump’s inauguration, House Democrats made one thing certain: money determines politics, not the other way around.

“One of the terrible things about Citizens United is people feel that they're powerless, that they have no hope,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.).


The roundtable discussion focused on the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision on prohibiting the government from restricting independent spending on political campaigns. The ruling unleashed corporate spending on elections and its impact was felt in the last election, where billionaire donors fueled Trump’s presidential win. Democrats on the Committee on House Administration convened the roundtable and only Democrats participated.

However, Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, said he supported the ruling in 2010 and still does now because the Supreme Court was correct in deciding that the First Amendment protected independent political spending by corporations and other groups.

He said Citizens United is not responsible for the “bad developments” in American politics.

“I think almost any constitutional right can potentially be destroyed by saying you're not allowed to expend resources in order to exercise the right. That's certainly true of the right of freedom of speech. If you say, ‘Well, you can say what you want, but you can't spend money to disseminate your speech or broadcast,’ that would clearly destroy the right of freedom of speech,” he said.

According to PBS News, the 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive election since the 1980s. OpenSecrets reported that the amount spent was $5.5 billion.

Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United, an advocacy group, told the gathering of lawmakers that the wealth of the ten richest people in the world surged by $64 billion the day after Trump was elected. She added that Elon Musk’s net worth had “increased by $200 billion just this year.”

She said the Court’s Citizens United decision was “disastrous,” and it not only opened the floodgates to unlimited and undisclosed spending, but it shut the door on getting anything done.

She said that before Citizens United, there were 14 instances of Republicans joining with Democrats to address climate change, and after it passed, the oil and gas lobby became the number one spender in elections, and “there have since been zero instances of us being able to address that since.”

Muller said yesterday’s inauguration was the culmination of the consequences of the last 15 years and the start of what she referred to as “the Billionaire’s Ball” because “just seven people donated a billion dollars to elect Donald Trump.” Now, some of them sit at the head of government agencies, “like Dr. Oz, who made a fortune as a snake oil salesman.”

In his last address to the nation, former President Joe Biden warned that rich people were having so much sway in politics that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America.”

McGovern, however, argued that the word ‘oligarchy’ should not be used because “people don’t know what that means.”

He suggested, instead, that lawmakers keep drawing the connection to show how big money influences particular policies.

“If you're on a committee that deals with healthcare, tie the fact that Trump is trying to undo efforts to lower the cost of pharmaceuticals. We have to keep making the connection,” he said.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) contradicted McGovern, “The reality is that we need to tell the truth, and if people don't understand the language we're using, it doesn't mean that we don't tell it to them. It means that we have to get them up to speed on the language.”

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) joked that she could use tequila in her coffee after the witnesses’ testimony “because it all feels awful.” But she said that these issues are exactly why she believes it’s her responsibility to do everything she can to make sure that people understand the impact of money in politics.

Ramirez, a daughter of immigrants, was the first Latina ever to be elected to serve Illinois in Congress.

“It's 2025, why is that? It's too damn expensive to run for Congress,” she said.

Some legal experts said Citizens United does not determine who wins elections.

Joe Luppino-Esposito, deputy legal policy director at the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that the candidates with the most money do not always win.

“Ask [former Vice President] Kamala Harris, who spent well over a billion dollars,” Luppino-Esposito said. “She dwarfed [Trump] completely, and he still prevailed. It’s definitely not the case that whoever has the most dollars automatically wins.”

According to Forbes, Harris’ campaign raised around $20 million from big donors between October and November, compared to Trump’s $5 million.

Luppino-Esposito disagreed with the alarms Democrats raised about oligarchs.

“Every party has their own oligarchs,” he said. “Everybody has their own people that they hail as their leaders in industry. When the case came down in 2010, there was this perception that corporate money was all going to be on the Republican side of the aisle, and that is very, very far from the case. Both sides have engaged in the arms race… Trump is not as afraid to tout that these people are on his side, whereas President Biden had the same type of people on his side as well [like George Soros].”

Somin, from George Mason University, said he’s unhappy with the winners in the recent election, but he does not blame Citizens United.

“American politics since 2010 has certainly gone in much worse directions than I had expected or hoped,” he said. “I don't think Citizens United is the culprit.”

“There are going to be some people who can exercise liberty in some ways more effectively than others. If you're a famous celebrity like Taylor Swift, when you speak, many more people are going to pay attention,” he said. “With almost every constitutional right, there's some degree of inequality in the sense of how effectively you can exercise that right, but I don't think there's anything unique to money and speech in that respect.”

During the roundtable, Lee conceded that it’s not just Republicans who protect big money in politics. Democrats publicly oppose Citizens United, but their actions don't align with their words.

“In our Democratic party, we won't even get rid of money and politics… when it's just us, and we have to start to talk about the why. I am the first Black woman to represent Pennsylvania. I do not come from money,” she said. “There is no one in my phone who I can call and ask for a significant amount of money. And because there's no such person in my network, people like me are systematically blocked from representing in Congress.”

Lee added that any one who cares about mass shootings, the climate, environmental racism, or taking down Big Pharma, should care about money in politics.

“If we can't put our money where our mouth is, then we have to be very real about whether or not we are actually fighting for the best interest of the American people,” Lee said. “We can't combat Big Pharma if we are also accepting money from them. Democrats have to be more serious about serving the people, and we can't do that if we are not serious about combating our own issues with taking money in politics.”

Samanta Habashy is a student at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, majoring in journalism and international studies.


Read More

Blank Checks and Empty Promises: The Collapse of Congressional Fiscal Power

A politician counting money in front of the US Capitol Building.

Getty Images, fStop Images - Antenna

Blank Checks and Empty Promises: The Collapse of Congressional Fiscal Power

From Governing to Grandstanding

There was a time—believe it or not—when Congress actually passed budgets the old-fashioned way: through debate, compromise, and the occasional all-night session, not theatrics designed to appeal to cable news and social media. The process, while messy, followed a structure: hearings, markups, votes, and compromises. That structure—known as regular order—wasn’t just congressional tradition. It was the scaffolding of democratic accountability. It has also been steadily torn down.

Deadlines and dysfunction better define today’s Congress. Instead of the back-and-forth of healthy deliberation, Congress relies on continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibus bills. Budget gimmicks that were once used only during fiscal emergencies—backloaded cuts, timing shifts, reconciliation sleight-of-hand—are now the rule, not the exception. Congress has shifted from prioritizing policy to prioritizing the message and crafting political narratives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Outside Money, Inside Influence: How National Donors Shaped the 2024 Congressional Elections

An individual voting with money.

Getty Images, Orbon Alija

Outside Money, Inside Influence: How National Donors Shaped the 2024 Congressional Elections

In 2024, campaign fundraising in federal elections was more nationalized than ever. Candidates for both the House and Senate continued a decades-long trend of relying less on donations from the voters they represent and more on contributions from donors across the country. The nationalization of campaign contributions, once a concern among elections experts, is now a defining feature of congressional campaigns.

An analysis of 2024 House and Senate campaign data reveals just how deeply this transformation has taken hold. From candidates in small states with limited donor bases to top congressional leaders with national profiles — and especially in competitive races in battleground states — non-local campaign contributions were ubiquitous.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who Really Pays for Congress? Local Donors All but Disappear in 2024

Hundred dollar bills.

Giorgio Trovato on Unsplash

Who Really Pays for Congress? Local Donors All but Disappear in 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. - There is an old saying: All politics is local. However, many voters may get the impression this is becoming less and less a reality -- particularly in US House and Senate elections where candidates are elected to represent specific districts or states, but campaign to a national audience.

This is because local influence in the most contested races is dying out -- a statement not contrived from opinion, but fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money in politics
Super PACs tied to major parties misled voters, complaint alleges
erhui1979/Getty Images

Is It Possible To Reverse Course on the Corruptive Influence of Money in American Politics?

A $288 Billion Dollar Proto-Presidency?

The 2024 presidential election saw Elon Musk spend over a quarter of a billion to elect President Trump, which is exactly $288 million according to The  Washington Post report of the final tally of campaign spending on January 31, 2025. Did that staggering campaign contribution buy the billionaire the right to attend cabinet meetings and stand beside the President in the Oval Office and at other events? Did those millions buy a Proto-Presidency, complete with the opportunity to run a department aggressively dismantling government and radically changing what government does for ordinary Americans while personally benefiting from government contracts? Professor Lawrence Lessig argues that ‘Musk is the clearest example of the corrupting influence of money in politics.’ According to a recent PEW study, 72% of Americans agree that money is the number one corrupting influence in politics. So, what can be done? Are we too far down this road to make meaningful change, or are there options?

Keep ReadingShow less