America Is Diseased by Money in Politics — But We’re Not Dead Yet
📖 Full Retelling
The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision has allowed billionaires to buy elections. Its time to fight back
Entity Intersection Graph
No entity connections available yet for this article.
Original Source
America Is Diseased by Money in Politics — But We’re Not Dead Yet The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision has allowed billionaires to buy elections. Its time to fight back By Jack Schlossberg Jack Schlossberg April 7, 2026 This year, America turns 250 years old — and our body politic has never been sicker. We’re suffering from a seemingly incurable illness called Citizens United . Its symptoms are everywhere: paralysis in Congress, collapsing public trust, and an economy that feels totally rigged. It may be terminal — but we’re not dead yet. My campaign for Congress is running a clinical trial in New York City, testing whether grassroots medicine can inoculate an infected political machine. But how did we get infected in the first place? The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC unleashed a pathogen into the bloodstream of American democracy: unlimited, undisclosed corporate and billionaire spending. The Court reinterpreted the First Amendment, holding that money is speech, corporations are people, and the right to speak freely includes the right to spend freely, too. This set a new equilibrium and put a price tag on elections. To cure the disease, first we have to understand how it spreads. Money flows through our politics like blood, pumped through veins and arteries and carried by two different types of “cells”: campaign contributions and independent expenditures. Contributions are direct donations to a campaign. Independent expenditures are funds spent by outside groups to advocate for or against a candidate or issue. Until 2010, both were subject to strict limitations. The Court drew a bright line between the two, ruling that only contributions can be constitutionally limited. Precedent holds that First Amendment rights may only be restricted when there’s a sufficient risk of harm (like hate speech, obscenity, or child pornography). Because contributions go directly to candidates, they can be restricted to protect against the risk of quid...
Read full article at source