THE BALLOT IS SECRET. THE MONEY SHOULDN’T BE.

VAULT · CAN I SPEAK TO THE MANAGER?

Published by Langhorne P. Breedlove

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 · 2:12 AM ET

Tags: Citizens United · Campaign Finance · Super PACs · Independent Expenditures · Disclosure · Constitutional Reform

Dear fellow American proletariat: The American voter enters a booth, marks a ballot in private, and emerges to discover that several billion dollars have already spent eighteen months having a very public conversation about the election. Our votes are counted one at a time. Political advertising, meanwhile, is sold by the truckload. How we got here requires more than shouting the name of a Supreme Court case like a curse word.

This VAULT investigation traces the law of campaign contributions, independent spending, political committees, disclosure, and constitutional protections. American Proletariat's connected Justice policies contemplate major campaign-finance reform. The first obligation here is to explain what the law actually allows, which rules courts changed, what the public can know, and what legislation—or constitutional amendment—would be necessary for alternatives.

JANUARY 21, 2010: WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY SAID

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It held that corporations and labor unions could not be barred from using their general treasury funds for independent political expenditures and certain electioneering communications because the restrictions violated the First Amendment (Source 01). The decision did not legalize direct corporate contributions to federal candidates or repeal all reporting and disclaimer requirements; the Court upheld the latter requirements as applied in the case (Source 01).

The distinction is critical. A contribution goes to a candidate or political committee under applicable rules. An independent expenditure pays for advocacy about a candidate without coordination with that candidate or party. Spending coordinated with a campaign may be treated as an in-kind contribution subject to limits and source prohibitions (Source 02). A political organization calling itself independent does not make every interaction independent by magic.

The majority reasoned that independent corporate expenditures did not themselves create the sort of quid-pro-quo corruption that justified restrictions on contributions. Critics argue that concentrated spending can produce access, dependency, or perceived influence even without a provable explicit exchange. Those are competing constitutional and institutional judgments; the holding must not be misquoted as permission to bribe officials (Source 01).

HOW SUPER PACS ENTERED THE PICTURE

Citizens United was not the only decision behind super PACs. In SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the D.C. Circuit held in March 2010 that contribution limits could not be applied to groups making only independent expenditures, while sustaining applicable registration and reporting requirements (Source 03). Together with subsequent FEC implementation, the rulings helped establish independent-expenditure-only committees that may receive unlimited funds from permitted sources.

Federal Election Commission guidance explains that super PACs can solicit unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations, and other committees, but cannot accept contributions from foreign nationals, federal contractors, national banks, or federally chartered corporations. They may not contribute to federal candidates or coordinate spending that becomes a prohibited or excessive contribution (Sources 02, 04). Unlimited is not a synonym for unregulated.

HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

The FEC's April 23, 2025 summary reported approximately $4.4265 billion in independent expenditures during the full 2023–2024 federal election cycle. PACs reported $15.7441 billion in receipts and $15.5203 billion in disbursements over that cycle (Source 05). Those categories overlap in important ways: independent expenditures can be part of political committees' spending. Adding every headline figure together would exaggerate the combined amount.

For the current 2025–2026 cycle, the FEC's October 1, 2026 report covered activity only through June 30, 2026. It recorded $643.4 million in independent expenditures and $8.3 billion in PAC receipts during that 18-month period (Source 06). These are partial-cycle reports, not final November 2026 totals. Comparing them directly with a completed presidential-election cycle without noting the period and offices involved would be statistics wearing a fake mustache.

WHOSE NAME IS ON THE CHECK?

Super PACs have FEC registration and reporting obligations, and many political advertisements require disclaimers. The FEC provides searchable receipts, disbursements and independent-expenditure data (Sources 04, 07). Yet a disclosed contribution from one organization may not establish the identity of every person or entity that funded that organization. Traceability through nonprofit groups, corporate entities and intermediaries raises separate questions about disclosure statutes, beneficial ownership, donor privacy and administrative capacity.

The principle of public accountability must coexist with constitutionally protected association and speech. Some donors reasonably fear harassment or retaliation. Others may exploit opaque funding channels to conceal economically important relationships. Rules should distinguish small private contributions from large expenditures that materially affect elections, establish thresholds, and protect people from unnecessary exposure.

WHO DECIDES WHAT COUNTS AS CORRUPTION?

Campaign-finance law addresses explicit exchanges, contribution restrictions, coordination, reporting and other conduct through different legal standards. A photographed handshake, political agreement or disclosed donation does not alone prove bribery. Investigations must establish the relevant law, a transaction or coordination where required, the people involved and the evidence supporting any alleged violation.

That precision is not softness toward influence. It is how enforcement survives in court. A rule so vague that officials can wield it against disfavored speakers risks becoming a censorship instrument. A rule so narrow that obvious coordination can be routed through consultants and shell structures may fail its purpose. Both are genuine design problems.

CAN CONGRESS SIMPLY 'END' CITIZENS UNITED?

Congress cannot repeal a Supreme Court constitutional holding merely by passing a statute that announces the decision is over. It can legislate within existing First Amendment boundaries: improve permissible disclosures and disclaimers, strengthen enforcement of actual coordination, develop voluntary public-financing systems, and consider institutional changes that are otherwise lawful. Attempts to impose new broad limits on protected independent spending would encounter the precedent itself (Sources 01, 02).

To change the constitutional rule directly, supporters of an amendment must confront Article V: Congress may propose an amendment by two-thirds votes in both houses, or a convention may be called on application from two-thirds of state legislatures; ratification requires three-fourths of the states—38 today (Source 08). It is a high threshold by design. The country ought to know the legal mountain before being sold a bumper sticker claiming someone has already climbed it.

IS PUBLIC FINANCING A REAL ALTERNATIVE?

The United States already operates a voluntary presidential public-financing program. The FEC explains that qualifying primary candidates can receive matching funds for eligible small individual contributions and that qualifying nominees can receive general-election grants subject to spending and fundraising conditions (Source 09). The program has limitations and does not extend automatically to congressional elections. Its existence nevertheless shows that public financing is a legal design question, not a fantasy invented yesterday.

One proposal could match small contributions for qualifying candidates, another could offer voter-directed democracy vouchers, and another could emphasize disclosure and enforcement instead of public subsidies. Each must address eligibility, fraud, participation, equal treatment of candidates, taxpayer cost and the risk that private independent spending continues alongside the public program. None can promise the disappearance of wealthy donors simply because public grants exist.

THE ONE-YEAR & TEN-YEAR FISCAL TEST

A credible reform ledger would separate election-agency staffing, public reporting platforms, audits, digital-ad transparency, enforcement and legal appeals from any new publicly financed campaign grants. Existing FEC operations and election spending belong in the baseline. Compliance obligations borne by political committees and donors are not automatically Treasury expenditures.

Illustrative arithmetic, not an approved appropriation: suppose a federal small-donor matching pilot reimburses eligible campaigns for 1 million contributions averaging $50 at a 6-to-1 public match. The direct match would be $300 million in one year. Add a hypothetical $30 million for auditing, payment verification and administration, producing $330 million gross. Repeating an identical annual program for ten years would equal $3.3 billion before inflation, participation changes, enforcement costs, or any adjustments to the match. The example assumes eligible contributions are matched under a defined formula; it is not a forecast of candidate behavior.

A genuine ten-year model must report year-specific elections, candidate and donor eligibility, actual participation, private contributions, public payments, FEC workforce and system costs, fraud investigations, litigation, changes in fundraising, effects of independent expenditures, and uncertainty. Public financing would be expenditure, not revenue. Any proposed offsets must be separately authorized and supported by evidence.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

Disclosure can become intrusive when it exposes small donors or sensitive associations. Complicated coordination tests can deter lawful independent speech while failing to identify deliberate evasion. Public-financing qualification thresholds can privilege established parties or exclude newcomers. Unlimited independent expenditures may continue even if candidates opt into public spending caps. And new rules can be enforced inconsistently if the administering commission lacks a workable decision process.

Advocates of spending limits emphasize political equality, the risk of dependency on major funders, and public confidence. Opponents emphasize free speech, association, pluralism, and the potential for incumbent politicians to regulate their critics. These are not imaginary tensions. A durable reform should specify the harm it is trying to reduce, consider credible alternatives, and protect dissent—including dissent from the people proposing the reform.

WHAT WOULD COUNT AS SUCCESS?

Measure the completeness and timeliness of disclosures, the share of spending with traceable funders, audited coordination findings, enforcement timeliness, litigation outcomes, public-financing participation, small-donor diversity, candidate entry, public costs and demonstrable voter understanding. Report trends with clear definitions and comparable election periods. A successful disclosure reform should allow a citizen to follow the money without needing a private investigator and three law degrees.

No citizen should need a donor's permission to exercise the franchise. No political speaker should lose constitutional protection merely because the government dislikes their message. The republic has to solve those two problems together. We can start by reading the court opinions, following the funding, and making every proposed rule answer the same question: whose democratic freedom does this protect, and at what cost?

RELATED JUSTICE MANDATES

Campaign Finance & Leadership Transparency addresses AP's proposed statutory and constitutional reforms. Expose Corruption & Hidden Influence concerns financial transparency and public integrity. Automatic & Accessible Voting and Top-Four Primaries & Ranked-Choice Elections concern election participation and rules, which do not by themselves change independent-spending law.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

01 · Federal Election Commission — Citizens United v. FEC: Court Case Summary; Supreme Court ruling January 21, 2010.

https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/

02 · Federal Election Commission — Understanding Independent Expenditures and Coordination; current guidance.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/understanding-independent-expenditures/

03 · Federal Election Commission — SpeechNow.org v. FEC: Court Case Summary; March 2010 ruling.

https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/speechnoworg-v-fec/

04 · Federal Election Commission — Contributions to Super PACs and Hybrid PACs; permitted and prohibited sources.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/taking-receipts-pac/contributions-to-super-pacs-and-hybrid-pacs/

05 · Federal Election Commission — Statistical Summary of 24-Month Campaign Activity, 2023–2024; April 23, 2025.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-of-24-month-campaign-activity-of-the-2023-2024-election-cycle/

06 · Federal Election Commission — Statistical Summary of 18-Month Campaign Activity, 2025–2026; October 1, 2026.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-of-18-month-campaign-activity-of-the-2025-2026-election-cycle/

07 · Federal Election Commission — Campaign Finance Data: About the Data; definitions, reporting and independent expenditures.

https://www.fec.gov/campaign-finance-data/about-campaign-finance-data/

08 · National Archives — Article V, United States Constitution: Amendment Process.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html

09 · Federal Election Commission — Public Funding of Presidential Elections; rules and existing program.

https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/

10 RECOMMENDED ARTICLES, ESSAYS & POLICIES

→ Explore Campaign Finance & Leadership Transparency

→ Explore Expose Corruption & Hidden Influence

→ Explore Corruption, Lobbying, Official Misconduct & Accountability

→ Explore National Climate Adaptation

→ Explore Ferries, Locks & Public Waterways

→ Explore Anti-Epsteins

→ Explore Stalwarts

→ Explore Elite & Industrial Power

→ Explore Reformers, Abolitionists & Civil Rights

→ Explore Great Salt Lake & Western Water

WE ARE ONE.  ·  E PLURIBUS UNUM.