Citizens United
In the years following World War II, the political and economic landscape of the United States underwent a dramatic transformation. The war had propelled the country into a position of global leadership, and as American society shifted from wartime production to a booming consumer economy, the political arena became more complex. Campaign finance, which had been relatively modest before the war, started to evolve in response to growing political competition, the rise of mass media, and the increasing costs of running for office.
The post-war era saw the emergence of television as a key tool for political communication, making campaigns more expensive as candidates sought to reach voters through broadcast ads. At the same time, interest groups and corporations began to realize the power of political donations as a way to influence policy and decision-making in Washington. As the stakes grew higher, so did the amount of money funneled into campaigns. By the 1960s, concerns about the unchecked flow of money into politics were mounting, as scandals and allegations of political favoritism underscored the need for reform.
It was against this backdrop that the 1970s became a critical decade for campaign finance reform. Lawmakers, reacting to both growing public concern and major political scandals like Watergate, sought to introduce legislation to curb the influence of money in politics and restore public trust in the democratic process. Yet, despite the push for reform, these efforts would face significant challenges, with far-reaching consequences for the future of American politics.
The movement for campaign finance reform in the 1970s arose from two major political crises: the rise of corporate influence in politics and the Watergate scandal. During the 1960s and early 1970s, political campaigns became increasingly expensive, requiring candidates to rely on wealthy donors and corporations to fund their efforts. The growing influence of these special interest groups raised concerns about corruption, as it became evident that large donations often came with expectations of political favors.
In August 1971, just two months before his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, Lewis F. Powell Jr. penned a confidential memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that would profoundly shape the future of American politics and the role of corporations within it. Known as the “Powell Memo”, this document was titled “Attack on the American Free Enterprise System,” and it was a call to arms for the business community. Powell argued that corporate America was under siege by an increasingly activist government, progressive reformers, and intellectuals, and that corporations needed to mobilize and defend their interests more aggressively in the political arena.
Although Powell’s memo was primarily aimed at encouraging businesses to take a more proactive role in promoting free-market capitalism, it went on to provide a blueprint for what would become a highly organized and influential corporate-political task force. This corporate-political nexus, built on Powell’s recommendations, would shape the political landscape for decades, consolidating corporate power and influence over American politics, law, and regulation. The Powell Memo, thus, became a turning point that redefined corporate America's role in shaping public policy, leading to the rise of corporate lobbying, think tanks, and legal activism designed to protect and expand corporate interests.
Powell’s memo expressed deep concern over what he saw as the growing influence of anti-business forces in American society, including the labor movement, consumer rights activists like Ralph Nader, and increasingly liberal politicians. Powell argued that the free enterprise system was not just being threatened by government regulation, but by a cultural shift that was critical of capitalism itself. He believed that corporate leaders were not doing enough to defend the system that had allowed them to thrive, warning that unless they acted swiftly and decisively, they risked losing political power and influence.
In the memo, Powell laid out a strategic blueprint for corporate America to regain control. He urged the business community to adopt a comprehensive, long-term plan to influence public opinion, shape educational curricula, and engage directly with lawmakers. One of his key recommendations was a significant increase in corporate lobbying and legal advocacy. Powell advised businesses and the Chamber of Commerce to invest heavily in lobbying campaigns to shape legislation and regulatory policies in favor of corporate interests. He emphasized supporting pro-business candidates through financial contributions to ensure that lawmakers were responsive to their agenda.
Powell also called for the creation of think tanks and research institutions that would promote free-market economics and corporate-friendly policies. He believed that the intellectual environment, especially in universities and the media, was increasingly hostile to business interests, and suggested that corporations counter this by funding research and scholars who would advocate for deregulation and capitalism. Additionally, Powell emphasized the power of media in shaping public opinion. He argued that businesses needed to invest in public relations campaigns to combat the negative portrayal of corporate America, recommending that they either create their own media outlets or influence existing ones to ensure the pro-business message was effectively communicated.
Recognizing the importance of education in shaping future generations, Powell also advocated for corporate influence in schools. He recommended that corporations fund educational programs, textbooks, and curricula that promoted the virtues of capitalism and the free enterprise system. By doing so, he believed businesses could create a generation more supportive of corporate interests.
This call to action resonated deeply within the business community, which had grown increasingly alarmed by the political and social shifts of the 1960s and 1970s. Powell’s memo ultimately became a blueprint for a coordinated effort by corporations to reassert their dominance in American politics.
Following the release of Powell’s memo, corporate leaders began to organize in ways that were unprecedented in American history. Over the next few decades, businesses invested billions of dollars into creating and supporting the infrastructure that Powell had envisioned. This effort led to the rise of a powerful corporate-political task force that reshaped the American political landscape. One of the key elements of this movement was the rapid expansion of corporate lobbying. Lobbying became a massive industry in Washington, D.C., as businesses pooled their resources to influence policymakers. Organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and industry-specific lobbying groups poured money into efforts aimed at shaping tax laws, labor regulations, environmental policies, and more.
Another crucial development was the creation of conservative and pro-business think tanks. In the 1970s and 1980s, institutions like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute, many directly funded by corporations and wealthy individuals aligned with Powell’s vision, became influential in shaping public policy. These think tanks produced research, policy papers, and expert testimony that advocated for deregulation, tax cuts, and free-market policies. Their work significantly influenced lawmakers and helped sway public opinion in favor of corporate-friendly policies.
At the same time, corporations and wealthy individuals increasingly used their financial resources to influence elections through direct contributions to candidates who supported their interests. This practice led to the rise of Political Action Committees (PACs) and later Super PACs, which allowed businesses to channel vast sums of money into political campaigns. The influence of Powell's memo became particularly evident following the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which allowed for unlimited independent political spending. This ruling further empowered corporate interests by enabling them to spend heavily on political advocacy without direct coordination with candidates.
Finally, the corporate-political task force was highly successful in pushing for deregulation and tax policies favorable to businesses. During the 1980s, under the Reagan administration, many of the policies advocated by Powell and his allies were enacted. Deregulation in industries such as telecommunications, energy, and finance led to greater corporate profits, while tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy became a defining feature of Reagan-era economic policy. These changes further solidified the power and influence of corporate America in U.S. politics.
The Watergate scandal, which ultimately led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974, is one of the most significant political crises in American history. It began with a seemingly minor event on June 17, 1972, when five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. What initially appeared to be a botched burglary soon unraveled into a complex web of political espionage, illegal wiretapping, and campaign finance abuses orchestrated by members of Nixon’s re-election team, known as the Committee to Re-Elect the President (often ironically abbreviated as CREEP).
At the heart of the scandal was the discovery that Nixon’s re-election campaign had operated a secret slush fund, filled with money from corporate donations and other sources, which was used to finance covert operations and dirty tricks against political opponents. This included not only the Watergate break-in but also other acts of sabotage, such as illegal wiretaps, smear campaigns, and attempts to undermine Nixon's political rivals.
Nixon and his top aides sought to cover up their involvement in these activities, going so far as to obstruct the FBI’s investigation and attempting to use the CIA to block inquiries. The administration's efforts to suppress the truth about Watergate deepened the scandal as the media, particularly reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein from *The Washington Post*, pursued leads that exposed the broader corruption within Nixon’s administration.
As investigations by the Senate Watergate Committee and independent prosecutor Archibald Cox progressed, more revelations emerged. The most damning piece of evidence was the existence of secret tape recordings made by Nixon in the Oval Office. These tapes contained conversations that implicated the president in the cover-up of the Watergate burglary, as well as discussions about using hush money to silence those involved.
Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and the likelihood of removal by the Senate, Nixon chose to resign from the presidency on August 8, 1974, becoming the first U.S. president to do so. His resignation, however, did little to restore the public’s trust in government. The Watergate scandal exposed the extent to which money and power could be abused at the highest levels of government, fueling public outrage and a demand for greater transparency and accountability in the political process.
One of the key revelations was that the slush fund used by Nixon’s re-election campaign had been made possible by loopholes in existing campaign finance laws, which allowed for large, unregulated donations to be funneled into campaigns with little oversight. This highlighted the need for reform in the campaign finance system, as it became clear that without stricter regulations, the flow of money into politics could easily be manipulated for corrupt purposes.
In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress passed a series of reforms designed to address these issues. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was amended in 1974 to impose stricter limits on campaign contributions and require full disclosure of campaign finances in order to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations by placing caps on contributions to political campaigns and create the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce these regulations. These reforms were aimed at preventing future abuses of power and restoring public confidence in the political system. However, as later events would show, the effectiveness of these reforms would be limited by subsequent judicial decisions and the emergence of new loopholes that allowed money to continue playing an outsized role in American politics.
Despite the intentions behind FECA, several key developments undermined its effectiveness and led to the unraveling of the anti-corruption agenda. First, the legislation left significant loopholes that allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to circumvent contribution limits. For example, while the law placed limits on direct contributions to candidates, it did not adequately address the growing influence of PACs, which could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independently of official campaigns.
Despite the intentions behind the FECA and its 1974 amendments, several key developments undermined its effectiveness and paved the way for the unraveling of the anti-corruption agenda. While the law sought to curb the undue influence of money in politics by placing limits on contributions to individual campaigns and requiring greater transparency, it failed to close critical loopholes that allowed wealthy individuals and corporations to continue influencing elections in indirect but highly significant ways.
One of the most glaring issues was that FECA primarily targeted direct contributions to candidates’ campaigns, capping the amount of money that individuals, political committees, and organizations could donate to a particular candidate. However, the law did not sufficiently address the broader, evolving landscape of political fundraising, particularly the role of PACs. PACs are organizations formed by interest groups, corporations, unions, or ideological factions to pool contributions and fund political campaigns, issue advocacy, or lobbying efforts. While FECA set contribution limits for PACs donating directly to candidates, it left a major gap in regulating independent expenditures, which are political spending by groups that are not formally coordinating with a candidate’s campaign.
This gap became increasingly important as PACs found ways to exert significant influence over elections without directly donating to campaigns. Under the law, PACs could spend unlimited amounts of money on so-called “independent expenditures,” which were used for campaign-related activities such as advertisements, political messaging, and voter outreach. As long as PACs maintained a formal separation from the candidate’s campaign, they were free to raise and spend vast sums to support or oppose candidates without being bound by FECA’s contribution limits. This essentially allowed wealthy individuals and special interest groups to bypass the intended restrictions of the law and funnel unlimited resources into campaigns, albeit through indirect channels.
For example, a PAC could spend millions on television ads that promoted a candidate’s policy positions or attacked an opponent, all while claiming to act independently of the candidate’s official campaign. In practice, this allowed candidates to benefit from large-scale financial support without having to report the funds as part of their campaign’s official donations, creating a parallel system of influence that undercut FECA’s intended goals.
Furthermore, the formation of corporate and union PACs became a popular way for businesses and labor organizations to circumvent the restrictions on direct donations to candidates. Instead of giving money to a campaign directly, these entities could form PACs and solicit contributions from their members or employees, effectively creating a new avenue for amassing large sums of money for political influence. This proliferation of PACs meant that wealthy individuals and corporations could still wield significant power in elections, despite FECA’s restrictions on direct contributions.
In addition to these structural issues, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo delivered a major blow to FECA’s enforcement of spending limits. While the Court upheld limits on individual contributions to candidates, recognizing the government’s legitimate interest in preventing corruption or its appearance, it struck down limits on independent expenditures by individuals and groups. The ruling was grounded in the principle that spending money in the political process constitutes a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. The Court ruled that while contributions directly to candidates could be capped to prevent corruption, the government could not limit independent political spending that was not formally coordinated with campaigns, as doing so would violate free speech rights.
The Buckley decision created a critical distinction between contributions to campaigns, which could be regulated, and independent expenditures, which could not. This set a powerful legal precedent that equated the spending of money with political expression, allowing individuals, corporations, and interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for or against candidates, provided the spending was not coordinated with the campaign. The ruling thus gutted one of the core components of FECA: the attempt to limit the overall amount of money in politics.
This judicial interpretation of campaign spending as a form of free speech, combined with FECA’s inability to regulate the rising influence of PACs, meant that the floodgates were opened for massive sums of money to flow into the political system. By the late 1970s, political campaigns were more dependent than ever on outside groups for funding and support, with wealthy donors and interest groups finding increasingly creative ways to exert influence over candidates and elections.
Moreover, the rise of “soft money” further eroded the effectiveness of campaign finance reform. Soft money refers to contributions made to political parties for activities like voter registration drives and party-building efforts, rather than direct support for individual candidates. Although FECA restricted direct contributions to candidates, it did not impose the same limits on donations to political parties for these broader purposes. This created yet another loophole, allowing corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums to parties, which could then indirectly aid candidates through general campaign efforts, media campaigns, and infrastructure support. In practice, soft money became a backdoor for channeling vast resources into elections.
Ultimately, these developments severely weakened FECA’s original goal of reducing corruption and limiting the influence of money in politics. While the law made some strides in bringing transparency to political donations and imposing limits on direct contributions, it failed to account for the creative ways in which money could still be used to influence elections indirectly. The rise of PACs, the impact of the Buckley v. Valeo decision, and the exploitation of soft money loopholes ensured that wealthy individuals and special interest groups continued to have an outsized role in shaping American politics, despite the reforms of the 1970s. This failure to adequately address these challenges would have long-lasting consequences, laying the groundwork for the further entrenchment of money in politics in the decades to come.
The failure of anti-corruption legislation to meaningfully curb the influence of money in politics had a profound impact on the political landscape in America. The rise of PACs and the influx of soft money contributed to the further entrenchment of special interests in American politics. The increasing costs of running campaigns meant that candidates were more reliant on big donors, leading to a system where political influence was disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals and organizations. The weakening of campaign finance reform also exacerbated political polarization, as candidates found themselves catering more to the interests of their financial backers than to the broader electorate. Special interest groups and wealthy donors often had more extreme positions than the general public, pulling candidates away from the political center and contributing to the fragmentation of the political landscape. The failure to effectively regulate campaign spending laid the groundwork for future developments that would further entrench the power of money in politics.
In the late 1980s, Senator John McCain became embroiled in a major political scandal known as the **Keating Five**, a corruption scheme that involved five U.S. senators accused of improperly intervening on behalf of Charles H. Keating Jr., the chairman of Lincoln Savings and Loan. McCain, along with four other senators, was accused of exerting pressure on federal regulators to go easy on Keating’s financial institution, which was being investigated for risky business practices that contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis. This scandal, while a dark chapter in McCain's early career, ultimately shaped his future stance on corruption and political reform.
Charles Keating was a powerful businessman and a major political donor who contributed large sums of money to several senators, including McCain, to influence their actions in Washington. In 1987, as federal regulators were investigating Keating’s savings and loan company for illegal practices, the five senators—including McCain—met with regulators to discuss the case. This raised allegations of corruption and political favoritism, particularly because of the large financial donations Keating had made to the senators' campaigns.
Although McCain was ultimately cleared of legal wrongdoing, the Senate Ethics Committee reprimanded him for poor judgment in meeting with the regulators. The scandal damaged his reputation, but it also marked a turning point in his career. McCain emerged from the Keating Five scandal determined to distance himself from the perception of political corruption and big money influence in politics. This experience led him to adopt a strong stance on campaign finance reform and anti-corruption efforts, which would come to define much of his political career.
In the years following the scandal, McCain became a vocal critic of the role of money in politics and took a strong stand against members of his own party who resisted reforms. He co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Act (officially the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), which sought to limit the influence of "soft money" in elections—unregulated contributions to political parties that had become a major loophole in campaign finance regulations. Despite opposition from many Republicans, McCain pushed for these reforms, positioning himself as a champion of political integrity and transparency, even when it meant going against his own party.
McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal could have derailed his political career, but instead, it solidified his resolve to fight against corruption and influence-peddling in Washington. His experience with the scandal shaped his identity as a maverick within the Republican Party, willing to challenge the status quo and push for reforms that he believed were in the best interest of the American people, regardless of party politics.
Following the Keating Five scandal, the 1990s were transformative decades for American politics, especially in terms of the influence of money on elections and policymaking. Two key developments—the increase in Political Action Committees and the explosion of corporate lobbying—allowed large industries, like Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and Big Meat and Dairy, to wield unprecedented power in Washington. These industries used their wealth to buy political influence, often at the expense of the public's well-being, shaping policies that prioritized corporate profits over public health, the environment, and consumer protections.
The influence of PACs that became a major force in American politics beginning in the 1970s dramatically increased during the 1980s and 1990s. PACs allowed corporations, labor unions, and interest groups to pool financial contributions and direct them toward political campaigns, with the goal of securing favorable policies from elected officials. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, PACs were limited in how much they could donate directly to individual candidates, but they were free to spend large amounts independently to support or oppose candidates. This setup provided an avenue for wealthy donors and corporations to influence elections in ways that campaign finance reform had sought to prevent.
By the 1980s, PACs had become a dominant feature of campaign finance and between 1980 and 1990, the number of PACs in Washington nearly doubled, and by the mid-1990s, they were spending hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns. Corporations quickly realized that PACs provided a legal and effective method for securing political influence, and major industries took advantage of this system to promote their interests. PAC contributions created a strong financial incentive for politicians to support corporate agendas, leading to an erosion of public trust in government and an increasing sense that elected officials were being “bought” by big business.
Lobbying also exploded during this period, becoming a multibillion-dollar industry in Washington. Lobbyists working on behalf of corporate interests had access to lawmakers and regulators, helping to shape legislation that would benefit their clients. Between 1980 and 2000, spending on lobbying more than quadrupled, as corporations increasingly recognized the benefits of investing in political influence. The result was a growing disconnect between the interests of average Americans and the policies being crafted in Congress.
Industries like Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and Big Meat and Dairy invested heavily in both lobbying and PACs, ensuring that their interests were represented in Washington. These industries worked to block or weaken regulations that would harm their profits, often at the expense of public health and safety. Corporate lobbyists cultivated close relationships with lawmakers, often using financial contributions as leverage to secure favorable policies. In some cases, corporations were able to shape entire legislative agendas, ensuring that their industries were protected from government oversight.
One of the most egregious examples of corporate lobbying in the 1990s was the influence of Big Tobacco on American politics. For decades, tobacco companies had used their wealth to influence lawmakers and prevent regulation of their products, despite mounting evidence of the harmful effects of smoking. In the 1990s, tobacco companies were among the largest contributors to political campaigns through PACs, directing millions of dollars to candidates who would support their agenda and oppose stricter regulation.
Big Tobacco also used its influence to suppress public health campaigns aimed at reducing smoking rates. The industry funded research to cast doubt on the dangers of smoking and lobbied against efforts to raise tobacco taxes or restrict advertising. In return for political contributions, many lawmakers blocked or watered down attempts to regulate tobacco products. This continued even as smoking-related diseases, such as lung cancer and heart disease, became leading causes of death in the United States. The tobacco industry’s success in preventing regulation not only highlighted the corrupting influence of money in politics but also demonstrated how corporate profits were prioritized over public health.
The oil industry also emerged as a major political force during the1990s. As the global demand for energy grew, Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron sought to protect their profits by influencing energy policy in Washington. Oil companies used PACs and lobbying to push for policies that favored fossil fuel production, blocked environmental regulations, and secured government subsidies for oil exploration and drilling.
The result was a series of energy policies that encouraged greater dependence on oil and gas, with little regard for the environmental consequences. Lobbyists for Big Oil successfully opposed efforts to impose stricter fuel efficiency standards for vehicles or limit greenhouse gas emissions. In many cases, they actively worked to undermine the growing scientific consensus on climate change, funding research and public relations campaigns that cast doubt on the role of fossil fuels in global warming. These efforts delayed meaningful action on climate change for decades, allowing oil companies to continue profiting while the planet faced increasingly severe environmental consequences.
The meat and dairy industries also wielded significant influence over American politics, particularly when it came to shaping national dietary guidelines and agricultural policy. Throughout the 1990s, Big Meat and Dairy used PACs and lobbyists to push for policies that promoted the consumption of animal products and secured government subsidies for livestock production.
One of the most notable examples of this influence was the way the meat and dairy industries helped shape federal dietary guidelines. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which was responsible for developing these guidelines, faced significant pressure from lobbyists representing meat and dairy interests. As a result, dietary recommendations often emphasized the importance of consuming meat and dairy products, despite growing evidence linking excessive consumption of animal products to heart disease, cancer, and other health problems. The influence of these industries on public health policy raised serious ethical concerns, as the government appeared to be prioritizing the financial interests of the meat and dairy industries over the health of American consumers.
During the 1990s, the ability of corporations to buy political influence became a defining feature of American politics. Large corporations and industry groups were able to secure favorable legislation by making significant contributions to political campaigns and hiring well-connected lobbyists. This practice led to widespread concerns that politicians were more accountable to their corporate donors than to the voters they were elected to represent.
One of the most famous examples of a politician who faced allegations of being "bought" by corporate interests was President Ronald Reagan, whose administration was closely aligned with business leaders and corporate America. Reagan’s policies, including massive tax cuts for the wealthy and a sweeping deregulation agenda, reflected the priorities of corporate donors who had contributed heavily to his campaigns. Reagan’s presidency marked the beginning of an era in which corporate influence over politics became deeply entrenched, setting the stage for the political dynamics of the 1990s and beyond.
In the 1990s, the relationship between politicians and corporate donors became even more overt. The Clinton administration, for example, relied heavily on corporate fundraising, and the Democratic Party, which had traditionally been more skeptical of big business, increasingly embraced corporate donors. Bill Clinton's push for deregulation in the telecommunications and financial sectors, as well as his support for free trade agreements like NAFTA, reflected the growing influence of corporate money in politics.
The 21st century marked a dramatic shift in the political landscape of the United States, driven largely by the increasing influence of money in politics. During this period, the proliferation of lobbying and Super PACs fundamentally altered how campaigns were financed, amplifying the role of wealthy individuals and corporations in shaping American political outcomes. These decades solidified corporate control over politics, as businesses and industries gained unprecedented power over legislation, policy decisions, and the overall direction of the country. The rise of corporate political finance, combined with court rulings that relaxed restrictions on campaign spending, exacerbated economic inequality and weakened the ability of ordinary citizens to influence government decisions.
Lobbying had long been a powerful tool for corporate influence in Washington, but by the 2000s, it had become a multibillion-dollar industry. Corporations, trade associations, and special interest groups vastly expanded their lobbying operations, often employing former politicians and regulators with insider knowledge to push their agendas. Lobbying firms flourished during this period, with corporations investing heavily to ensure that their interests were protected and promoted.
Key industries such as finance, healthcare, defense, and energy were especially influential. The financial industry, for example, spent heavily on lobbying in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis, advocating for deregulation that allowed banks to take greater risks. Lobbyists successfully pushed for the repeal of parts of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had previously kept commercial banks and investment banks separate, thus enabling the risky behavior that contributed to the economic collapse. Even after the crisis, the financial sector continued to wield significant influence, ensuring that post-crisis reforms, such as the Dodd-Frank Act, were less strict than many reformers had hoped.
The healthcare industry, too, had a strong lobbying presence, especially during the debate over the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2009-2010. Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and hospital associations all lobbied heavily to shape the legislation in ways that would protect their profits, including lobbying against the creation of a public option that could have provided a government alternative to private insurance.
The most significant development in political finance in the 2010s was the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010. The case began when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, produced a documentary critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary season. The group wanted to air the documentary on television and advertise it, but doing so would violate the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), often known as the McCain-Feingold Act, which restricted corporations and unions from using their funds for "electioneering communications" (broadcast ads that clearly advocate for or against a candidate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Citizens United challenged these restrictions, arguing that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where the justices were tasked with deciding whether the government could restrict corporations and unions from spending money on political communications.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that political spending is a form of protected speech, and that the government could not limit independent expenditures for political campaigns. In other words, corporations and unions, like individuals, have a right to free speech, and spending money to influence elections is a form of that speech.
The Citizens United decision paved the way for the creation of Super PACs, a new type of political action committee that could raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. Unlike traditional PACs, which are subject to strict contribution limits, Super PACs could collect funds from corporations, unions, and individuals in any amount, allowing them to flood the airwaves with campaign advertisements and political messaging.
Super PACs quickly became a dominant force in elections. In the 2012 presidential election, the first major election after Citizens United, Super PACs spent more than $600 million, dramatically outspending traditional PACs and reshaping the campaign finance landscape. This trend continued in subsequent elections, with Super PACs exerting immense influence over both primary and general elections at the federal and state levels.
The rise of Super PACs further entrenched corporate power in politics. Corporations and wealthy individuals were able to pour vast sums of money into Super PACs to promote candidates who aligned with their interests. In some cases, a single donor or corporation could make a massive impact on an election by contributing millions of dollars to a Super PAC supporting their preferred candidate. This dynamic heightened the risk of corruption and increased the perception that politicians were beholden to their corporate donors rather than to their constituents.
By the 2020s, the influence of money in politics had reached unprecedented levels. Super PACs and dark money organizations (groups that do not have to disclose their donors) continued to play a central role in elections, and corporate lobbying remained a powerful force in shaping policy. Large corporations were able to exert tremendous influence on both political parties, securing policies that protected their profits while weakening regulations designed to protect the environment, public health, and worker rights.
Industries such as tech, oil , pharmaceuticals, and defense played outsized roles in political finance, spending billions of dollars to ensure that their interests were represented in Washington. Big Tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon, which had grown into some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world, used their wealth to influence both regulation and antitrust efforts. These companies lobbied aggressively to avoid government oversight and to maintain their dominance in the market, often funding candidates from both parties to ensure favorable treatment regardless of which party was in power.
Meanwhile, Big Oil continued to spend heavily on lobbying to prevent meaningful climate action. Despite growing scientific consensus on the need to address climate change, the fossil fuel industry successfully lobbied against efforts to reduce carbon emissions, delay the transition to renewable energy, and roll back environmental protections. This lobbying influence was evident during the Trump administration, which rolled back dozens of environmental regulations and withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, all policies supported by the fossil fuel industry.
Similarly, the pharmaceutical industry used its lobbying clout and Super PAC donations to protect its profits amid calls for drug pricing reform. Even as public outrage over high drug prices grew, pharmaceutical companies spent millions to block legislation that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a policy that could have saved consumers billions of dollars. The industry's ability to influence Congress highlighted how deeply entrenched corporate power had become in American politics.
The rise of corporate control over American politics during the 21st century had significant consequences for democracy and public policy. With corporations and the wealthy able to pour unlimited sums into Super PACs and lobbyists, the political system became increasingly tilted in favor of those with financial resources. This shift exacerbated economic inequality, as policies that favored corporations often came at the expense of working-class Americans.
One of the most troubling aspects of this dynamic was the growing disconnect between public opinion and public policy. Polls consistently showed that Americans supported policies such as stronger environmental protections, universal healthcare, and higher taxes on the wealthy. Yet these policies were often blocked or watered down by politicians who were more responsive to their corporate donors than to their constituents. The influence of corporate money distorted the policy-making process, making it harder for the government to address pressing issues such as climate change, healthcare reform, and economic inequality.
In addition, the rise of Super PACs and dark money organizations led to increased political polarization and the decline of transparency in elections. Because Super PACs could raise unlimited amounts of money, candidates often felt pressure to align with extreme positions to secure financial backing from wealthy donors. This contributed to the growing ideological divide in American politics, as candidates were incentivized to cater to the interests of their financial supporters rather than to the broader electorate.
Over the past several decades, the rise of conservative think tanks, outlined by Lewis F. Powell Jr. in the “Powell Memo”, has profoundly reshaped American politics. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute have become powerful forces in shaping public policy, legislative agendas, and the ideological direction of the Republican Party. These think tanks, many of which emerged or gained prominence during the 1970s and 1980s, have built intellectual frameworks and political strategies that have had a lasting impact on U.S. policy. One of the most recent and ambitious efforts to influence future American politics is Project 2025, a policy blueprint designed by the Heritage Foundation and its conservative allies to shape the direction of the country if Republicans regain control of the presidency in 2025. The project exemplifies the growing role of conservative think tanks in driving political change.
The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, was one of the earliest and most influential conservative think tanks to emerge in response to what many on the right saw as the dominance of liberal ideas in academia, media, and government. During the 1960s and 1970s, conservative leaders believed they needed to build institutions capable of producing research, policy recommendations, and intellectual arguments that could challenge the progressive consensus and offer free-market, small-government alternatives.
Heritage and other conservative think tanks aimed to provide Republican politicians with the tools and arguments they needed to advocate for policies that aligned with conservative values—limited government, free enterprise, traditional social values, and a strong national defense. These think tanks produced policy papers, conducted research, and engaged in media campaigns to influence both public opinion and legislative priorities.
One of Heritage’s most successful efforts came in the early 1980s when it produced the Mandate for Leadership, a comprehensive policy blueprint that outlined conservative policies for President Ronald Reagan's administration. The document became a foundational guide for many of the policies pursued by Reagan, including tax cuts, deregulation, and an emphasis on military spending. This success demonstrated the power of conservative think tanks to shape national policy, and it set the stage for future efforts to exert influence over Republican governance.
In 2023, as conservatives looked ahead to the 2024 presidential election, the Heritage Foundation unveiled Project 2025, an ambitious plan designed to influence the next Republican administration. Project 2025 serves as a roadmap for dismantling many of the policies and regulatory structures established during Democratic administrations, particularly those of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. It seeks to radically reshape the executive branch by promoting conservative values, reducing the size of the federal government, and rolling back regulations in areas such as environmental policy, healthcare, and labor.
The goal of Project 2025 is to ensure that a future Republican president enters office with a detailed, actionable policy agenda that can be implemented immediately. The Heritage Foundation has partnered with over 70 conservative organizations to draft this blueprint, making it one of the most coordinated efforts in recent history to align the conservative movement behind a singular vision for governing.
Key components of Project 2025 center around reshaping the federal government and advancing conservative priorities. A primary goal of the initiative is to restructure the federal bureaucracy by reducing the size and influence of the federal government, particularly the "administrative state." This would involve scaling back executive agencies, consolidating or eliminating regulatory bodies, and shifting control to state governments and the private sector. The project aims to significantly curtail the power of career civil servants, particularly in areas like climate policy, healthcare, and social services, which conservatives see as overly progressive and resistant to deregulation.
Another key focus of Project 2025 is rolling back environmental and climate regulations. The initiative seeks to dismantle many of the environmental protections established by Democratic administrations, especially those targeting climate change. It proposes rescinding greenhouse gas emissions regulations, weakening the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and expanding domestic oil and gas production. These measures represent a continuation of the deregulatory efforts seen during the Trump administration, particularly in the energy sector.
A significant component of Project 2025 is reshaping the judiciary. Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have long emphasized appointing judges with originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Project 2025 highlights the importance of continuing this trend, ensuring that conservative policies—especially regarding deregulation and social issues—hold up under judicial scrutiny. The appointment of conservative judges remains a key strategy for embedding long-term policy changes.
Lastly, Project 2025 aims to promote conservative social policies. This includes opposing abortion rights, restricting the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, and advancing religious freedom. The plan outlines strategies to ensure that federal policies reflect these values, relying on executive orders, regulatory changes, and judicial appointments to embed socially conservative agendas into government policy.
The rise of conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation has significantly altered the dynamics of American politics by providing a well-organized, intellectually robust framework for conservative policymaking. These think tanks have consistently been able to bridge the gap between ideas and action, translating conservative principles into concrete legislative agendas and executive orders. This influence has been particularly evident during Republican administrations, from Reagan in the 1980s to Donald Trump in the 2010s.
Conservative think tanks have shaped the priorities of Republican presidents by offering ready-made policy blueprints. The Mandate for Leadership guided Reagan’s agenda, and during Trump’s presidency, organizations like Heritage played a significant role in shaping his deregulatory efforts, including the rollback of environmental regulations and cuts to social welfare programs. Think tanks have also been instrumental in identifying and promoting conservative judicial nominees, a hallmark of Trump’s presidency.
They have introduced many of the key policy ideas that have defined the modern Republican Party, including supply-side economics (or “trickle-down” economics), deregulation of industry, and privatization of public services. These policies have led to significant changes in American governance, from tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy to the erosion of labor protections and environmental standards.
The growing prominence of conservative think tanks has also facilitated greater corporate influence in politics. Many of these organizations receive significant funding from corporations and wealthy donors who have a vested interest in promoting deregulation, lower taxes, and free-market policies. This relationship has resulted in the promotion of policies that prioritize corporate profits over the public good, such as opposing climate regulations or weakening consumer protections.
Project 2025 represents the culmination of decades of work by conservative think tanks to institutionalize their policy goals and ensure that a future Republican administration is prepared to implement them immediately. The project underscores the enduring power of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation to shape political discourse and policy decisions. By aligning conservative organizations around a common agenda, Project 2025 seeks to embed long-lasting changes in the structure of the federal government, further diminishing the regulatory state and entrenching conservative values.
However, Project 2025 also reflects the growing polarization in American politics, as it envisions a radical restructuring of the federal government that many on the left view as an attack on key public institutions. The aggressive push to reduce government oversight, roll back environmental protections, and promote socially conservative policies signals a deepening divide between progressives and conservatives on the role of government in American society.
Across the globe, many nations have grappled with the increasing influence of money in politics, which has often led to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals or corporations. In some cases, such as in Russia, this dynamic has given rise to oligarchies, where a small, powerful elite exerts enormous control over political and economic systems. As the role of money in American politics has expanded—particularly since the early 2000s—the United States faces similar concerns about the erosion of democracy and the growing power of corporate interests. Understanding how money has shaped political systems in countries like Russia and comparing it to trends in the U.S. can provide insight into how close America is to a system dominated by a small, wealthy elite.
The story of Russia’s transition to oligarchic rule began in the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the midst of economic chaos, the Russian government embarked on a series of rapid privatizations of state-owned assets. A small group of well-connected businessmen, later known as oligarchs, took advantage of these privatizations by acquiring key industries such as oil, natural gas, media, and telecommunications at deeply discounted prices. Through their newfound wealth and influence, these oligarchs quickly became some of the most powerful people in Russia.
The influence of money in Russian politics became evident as these oligarchs used their wealth to fund political campaigns, buy media outlets, and exert control over government policy. By the late 1990s, oligarchs effectively controlled many aspects of Russian politics and the economy, with the government increasingly responsive to their interests. The close relationship between business and politics led to rampant corruption, weakened democratic institutions, and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small elite.
Under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, the relationship between the state and oligarchs evolved, but the fundamental structure of power remained. While Putin reined in the political independence of some oligarchs, such as in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, those who remained loyal to his regime were allowed to maintain their economic empires in exchange for political support. This created a symbiotic relationship between the Kremlin and the oligarchs, where money continued to play a central role in maintaining power. The Russian political system today is characterized by a lack of transparency, a weakened opposition, and a state deeply intertwined with the interests of a small, wealthy elite.
Similar dynamics of money influencing politics have played out in other nations. In Brazil, the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations in politics reached a peak during the Operation Car Wash scandal, in which major corporations like Petrobras and Odebrecht were found to have funneled vast amounts of money into political campaigns in exchange for lucrative government contracts. This corruption scandal highlighted the degree to which money had shaped Brazilian politics, undermining the integrity of elections and creating a culture of impunity for the wealthy elite.
In Mexico, political financing has long been a tool used by drug cartels and wealthy business leaders to manipulate elections and government policies. This has contributed to a culture of corruption where money, rather than democratic values, often determines political outcomes. In many cases, politicians indebted to their financial backers have been reluctant to challenge organized crime or address the systemic issues that plague the country, further entrenching the power of elites at the expense of ordinary citizens.
In the United States, the role of money in politics has dramatically expanded in recent decades, raising concerns about the country’s potential drift toward oligarchy. While the U.S. maintains a stronger rule of law, more transparent elections, and more democratic institutions than countries like Russia, there are worrying parallels in how money has shaped American politics.
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 was a watershed moment, allowing corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns through Super PACs and independent expenditures. This ruling opened the floodgates for the influence of money in American politics, and since then, spending on elections has skyrocketed. In the 2020 election, political spending reached over $14 billion, more than double the amount spent in 2016. A significant portion of this spending came from a small group of ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations, further concentrating political power among the elite.
The rise of Super PACs has made it possible for a small number of extremely wealthy donors to have an outsized influence on political outcomes. Billionaires like the Koch brothers, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg, as well as major corporations and industry groups, have used Super PACs to support candidates who align with their interests. This dynamic has given rise to concerns that the political system is becoming increasingly responsive to the needs of corporate donors and the wealthy, rather than to the average voter.
At the same time, corporate lobbying has become a massive industry, with corporations spending billions of dollars each year to influence legislation and regulation. Industries such as healthcare, finance, energy, and technology have invested heavily in lobbying efforts to shape government policy in their favor. In many cases, these efforts have succeeded in blocking or diluting reforms that would address issues like climate change, income inequality, healthcare access, and labor rights. For example, the fossil fuel industry has spent heavily to oppose climate legislation, and the financial industry has lobbied against stronger banking regulations following the 2008 financial crisis.
The concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of a small elite has also contributed to increasing economic inequality in the U.S. Over the past few decades, income and wealth inequality have reached levels not seen since the Gilded Age. As corporations and the wealthy have gained more influence over political decisions, policies that disproportionately benefit the wealthy—such as tax cuts for corporations and deregulation of industries—have become more common. This has exacerbated the wealth gap and created a political system where money and access to power are increasingly intertwined.
While the United States has not yet reached the level of oligarchy seen in Russia, there are alarming signs that the political system is becoming increasingly dominated by wealthy interests. The rise of Super PACs, dark money organizations, and corporate lobbying have allowed money to play a central role in political campaigns and policymaking. As a result, politicians are often more responsive to their wealthy donors than to their constituents, leading to a sense of disenfranchisement among many Americans.
This dynamic is especially troubling because it undermines the democratic principle of equal representation. When a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections and shape policies, it distorts the political process and makes it harder for ordinary citizens to have their voices heard. The increasing role of money in politics has also contributed to growing political polarization, as candidates feel pressure to cater to their financial backers, often pushing them toward more extreme positions.
Another key concern is the erosion of public trust in government. As corporate money and special interest influence have become more visible, many Americans have grown cynical about the political system. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans believe that money has too much influence in politics, and that politicians are more focused on serving the interests of their donors than on addressing the needs of the broader public. This disillusionment has contributed to declining voter turnout and increased skepticism about the effectiveness of democratic governance.
While the United States has not yet become an oligarchy, the growing influence of money in politics poses a serious threat to the country’s democratic institutions. The rise of Super PACs, dark money, and corporate lobbying has allowed a small group of wealthy individuals and corporations to exert significant control over political outcomes, echoing the dynamics seen in oligarchic systems like Russia.
To prevent further erosion of democracy and ensure that political power is not concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few, campaign finance reform is urgently needed. Reforms such as overturning Citizens United, instituting public financing of campaigns, and strengthening lobbying regulations could help restore balance to the political system and reduce the influence of money in politics. Without these changes, the U.S. risks drifting further toward a political system where corporate interests overshadow the needs of the American people, creating a democracy in name only.
Project 2025 brings the United States closer to a system where corporate power increasingly dominates politics. By advocating for the drastic reduction of federal agencies, deregulation, and the promotion of free-market capitalism, Project 2025 aligns the political agenda even more with the interests of big corporations and the wealthy elite. This project echoes the erosion of democratic institutions seen in oligarchic systems, like those in Russia, where a small group of wealthy individuals control much of the political and economic power.
One of the key components of Project 2025 is the dismantling of regulations and government agencies that safeguard public interests, such as environmental protections and consumer rights. By weakening or eliminating oversight bodies, the plan would create more space for corporations in industries like fossil fuels, finance, and healthcare to operate with fewer checks on their power, enabling them to exert even greater influence over politics. This mirrors the way oligarchs in Russia gained dominance through privatization and the capture of key sectors, often at the expense of ordinary citizens’ wellbeing and environmental sustainability.
As Project 2025 pushes for more power to be concentrated in the hands of corporate interests through reduced government intervention, the U.S. risks furthering the gap between the wealthy elite and the rest of the population. The reliance on money in politics through Super PACs, corporate lobbying, and dark money organizations—bolstered by decisions like Citizens United—has already skewed the political system in favor of the rich. Project 2025’s deregulation agenda and consolidation of political influence would accelerate this trend, moving America closer to a system where corporations and a few wealthy individuals control much of the nation’s political outcomes, echoing the oligarchic structure found in other nations.
