r/IAmA • u/TheBrennanCenter Verified • 1d ago
We’re experts on money in politics at the Brennan Center. Ask us anything about how big money and Citizens United are shaping the midterms. AMA!
That's a wrap! Thanks for joining our AMA.
Check out Nine Solutions for Political Corruption
The system of campaign finance limits that has governed American elections since Watergate is virtually dead, which has major implications for the midterm campaign as it enters its final weeks. Elon Musk, whose companies hold billions in federal contracts, has spent roughly $366 million on the 2026 midterms, almost half of which has gone to one Senate candidate, Ken Paxton in Texas. Overall, big-money spending is on track to break records this year. Voters across the political spectrum are furious and want to see change. Ask us anything about how money is shaping the midterms and solutions to curb big money in elections and fight corruption.
Experts:
Dan Weiner, Senior Director, Elections and Government
Ian Vandewalker, Senior Counsel and Manager, Elections and Government
7
u/ohdannyboy189 1d ago
What would need to be done to stop Citizens United? Federal law changes, state level changes? How do we get politicians to support changes if it impacts their $$
11
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
This is a great question. There is a lot Congress and the states could be doing to deal with the effects of Citizens United, including passing better disclosure rules to eliminate dark money and cracking down on super PACs basically acting as the alter egos for candidates' campaigns. We also advocate for voluntary public financing programs that allow candidates to fund their campaigns without depending on megadonors. The system that recently went into effect in New York State has been a big success, helping candidates raise far more from their own constituents, as we write about here: New York State’s Public Campaign Financing Program Empowers Constituent Small Donors | Brennan Center for Justice
But I don't think we should accept that Citizens United is here to stay. Voters overwhelmingly want to see the decision overturned and support a constitutional amendment to do so, as we found in a recent poll: Poll: Voters Want Solutions for Government Corruption | Brennan Center for Justice
One thing we would like to see states do right now is pass "trigger laws" -- basically laws that would go into effect once Citizens United is overturned -- to show that they do not accept the decision as settled. This is what the antiabortion movement did to challenge Roe and, whether you approve of their goals or not, the strategy was very successful in ultimately getting the decision overturned. We wrote about a law that passed the Virginia senate last session, which is a good example: Virginia Lawmakers Should Pass Citizens United Trigger Law | Brennan Center for Justice DW
5
u/SebRLuck 1d ago
Citizens United isn't even the main problem, SpeechNow is. Most people just never heard of the latter decision.
In Citizens United, SCOTUS argued that political spending by groups that do not coordinate with a candidate doesn't pose a risk for quid pro quo corruption (I give you x if you do y) or the appearance of quid pro quo corruption (this last part is important). Without the existence of that risk, according to the court, there's no valid argument to limit the spending as an expression of a group's first amendment rights. The donation side of things wasn't addressed in the decision.
SpeechNow is an appellate court decision that happened shortly after Citizens United, which was based on SCOTUS's ruling. This decision argued that, if spending by a group that doesn't coordinate with a candidate cannot lead to quid pro quo corruption, then donations to that group can also not do that. Therefore, donations to these groups cannot be limited.
This ruling was flawed, but it has never been challenged in front of the Supreme Court. Rules regarding coordination between a super PAC donor and a candidate are much less strict, turning super PACs into vehicles for potential quid pro quo corruption between donors and candidates.
With Citizens United, the group "We're going to get X elected" was given the right to spend as much money as they want, as long as they don't coordinate with X, because SCOTUS says, without coordination, there can't be quid pro quo corruption.
SpeechNow gave an individual the right to walk up to candidate X and say: "Hey, I'm very interested in getting a tax exemption for this specific sector and I'm thinking about giving $50 million to a super PAC supporting a candidate whose campaign best reflects my views." And candidate X can reply that this specific policy is in fact part of his agenda.
Candidate X can also speak at an event hosted by the super PAC "We're going to get X elected" and ask for "donations within the legal limit" and a super PAC official can then take the mic and say: "You can donate as much as you want to We're going to get X elected." As long as the candidate doesn't personally ask for more than $3,300, it's all fine.
Now, there's currently an attempt by Equal Citizens and others (including Lawrence Lessig and Neal Katyal) to finally get SpeechNow in front of the Supreme Court.
The attempt started with getting a law implemented in Main, which caps contributions to super PACs at $5,000. Obviously, this was immediately challenged, which got the ball rolling. Their strategy is to argue this entire case based on originalism, the current legal language of the Supreme Court's majority. And, instead of challenging Citizens United, they use Citizens United itself and other SCOTUS decisions, like NRSC, McCutcheon and Buckley, to challenge SpeechNow.
Those decisions argue that political spending can only be limited by the government due to quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of quid pro quo corruption. Here's a direct quote from Buckley (1976):
Of almost equal concern as the danger of actual quid pro quo arrangements is the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions. […] Congress could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence "is also critical … if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent."
The challengers argue that SCOTUS, when deciding Citizens United, never foresaw the developments that occurred after the subsequent SpeechNow decision and that the defacto practices of super PAC donors and candidates do approximate and sometimes outright constitute quid pro quo corruption and, even if the Court finds those practices to not cross that line, that they do undoubtedly create "the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions."
They employ many tools to argue their point, including the ballot measure in Main, in which 75% of voters agreed to limit super PAC contributions and a large scale independent survey, in which a vast majority of people stated that they consider the practices surrounding super PAC donations to constitute quid pro quo corruption and to be harmful to the political system.
If most Americans consider a practice quid pro quo corruption and harmful to the political system, it's very difficult to argue that it doesn't create the appearance of corruption and that it doesn't erode confidence in the system of government.
You can get more information about this case and the current state of things here.
0
u/Cesia_Barry 22h ago
This is a great share—thank you. Also, from a journalist, you could make this shorter & tight. People often don’t read long blocks of text anymore AMA.
4
u/uncoolcentral 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’ve worked for decades in digital communications optimization, developing expertise that search engines surface and LLMs cite as authoritative. I’d like to offer my expertise pro bono to a campaign finance reform organization, particularly one working in opposition to Citizens United.
I reached out to several organizations about 15 years ago but didn’t get so much as a response, so I took my volunteer work to my second favorite cause. The organization achieved many legislative and legal victories during my tenure. I ended that fruitful relationship about a year ago, and after a year of less professionally focused volunteering, I’m considering offering my professional services pro bono again.
How does someone with my experience get the attention of organizations like the Brennan Center? And beyond your own organization, which groups do you see doing particularly consequential work in campaign finance reform?
Edited for clarity.
3
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
Thank you so much for volunteering your time! I'm sorry nobody responded when you reached out before. Depending on where you live, you might consider reaching out to organizations in your state that work on democracy issues. State-based organizations tend to have the most need for volunteer support. You could also consider reaching out to the local chapter of a national organization like Indivisible or Common Cause. There is also a national organization called American Promise that explicitly focuses on overturning Citizens United. Always worth reaching out to them. DW
2
u/uncoolcentral 1d ago
I did a little stint with a local group here in San Diego. But as I was digging in deeper and recruiting a pro bono social media manager for them, the head of the organization literally called what I was doing “smoke and mirrors,” so I bowed out. The implication was that all this newfangled digital stuff was worthless and only door-to-door canvassing, phone calls, and billboards had value. I’m not willing to work where my expertise isn’t valued.
Remarkably, the San Diego campaign finance reform initiative I was working on made it all the way to a full City Council vote, where it was defeated 5–4 after a couple of big-money backed DINO representatives showed their true colors.
Most of my professional work is with national and international clients, so I could make a greater contribution working with an organization operating at that scale.
I appreciate the suggestions, and I’ll look into those organizations. But my biggest challenge isn’t identifying potential organizations. It’s getting someone at one of them to engage in a conversation about what I can contribute. That’s where I got nowhere 15 years ago.
Do you have any advice on how to get past that initial barrier?
2
u/Thexzamplez 1d ago
Why would you frame big-money spending as a problem if you're direct beneficiary of it?
- Open Society Foundations (Soros) — $7.5M from 2000–2010
- Ford Foundation — $3.8M in 2018, $5M in 2020, $1.5M in 2022
- MacArthur Foundation — $2.7M+ since 2012
- Lakeshore Foundation — $3M/year from 2020–2024
- Tides Foundation — $2.75M from 2002–2011
- Hewlett Foundation — $500K in 2016
- Pew Charitable Trusts — $1.5M in 2024
- Carnegie Corporation — $3.65M+ total since 1996
- Democracy Fund, Joyce Foundation, Rockefeller Family Fund, Overbrook Foundation, Liberty Hill Foundation, Heising-Simons Foundation
Individuals:
- Jim Kohlberg — $30M commitment in 2024 for Supreme Court reform
- Larry Rockefeller
- Barbra Streisand
- An anonymous $25M gift in FY2023 for the endowment
Corporate / other:
- Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund — $5.1M in 2020, $4.5M in 2021, $2.4M in 2022
- Vanguard Charitable — $1.8M in 2024
- GS Donor Advised Fund — $5M in 2024
- JPMorgan Chase, Comcast NBCUniversal, Salesforce, NBA
1
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
We are a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization that does not work to elect candidates so I don't think the comparison holds. For more than a century policymakers and courts have recognized the special risk of corruption that arises from election spending, which is why we are having this conversation. DW
0
u/Thexzamplez 1d ago
You're partisan in the functional, honest sense, nonpartisan only in the legal loophole sense. Your last thread about Voter ID and well as this thread are both about gaining advantage over Republicans.
I agree with you. Super PACs are awful and only further the influential disparity between the elites and the rest. But you know what else does that? NGOs that exploit our awful regulation of what qualifies as non-partisan.
You think because your influence isn't directly tied to a candidate, that the function is any different? Only in the blind eye of the law.
1
u/StatusWinter805 1d ago
What do you think of the proposed "American Promise" constitutional amendment?
1
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
The courts have been causing problems for campaign finance regulation since immediately after the post-Watergate reforms were passed in the 1970s. The nation needs a constitutional amendment allowing Congress and state legislatures to enact reasonable regulations of campaign financing. This is one of several anti-corruption policies that will help dig us out of the big money disaster. - IV
1
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
We support their proposal -- it was one of the solutions we singled out here that could make a real difference: Nine Solutions for Political Corruption | Brennan Center for Justice DW
1
u/Hot_Hair_5950 1d ago
What surprises you about your work?
2
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
I've been doing this for a while but even I am often astonished by the depth of the public's anger about the role of big money in elections. Almost seventeen years after Citizens United that anger is only getting stronger, even with so much else going on. DW
1
u/lookamazed 1d ago
Foreign nationals are banned from spending in US elections, but how well does that hold up in practice? Can foreign money still get in through dark money nonprofits that don't disclose donors, US subsidiaries of foreign companies, or state ballot measures? Which of those gaps worries you most, and what would close it?
2
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
Federal law bans foreign spending on all elections, federal, state, and local. The presence of so much dark money in elections (almost $2 billion in 2024) does raise the possibility that foreign money is sneaking in that way. It would still be illegal, though. Corporate money is subject to loopholes, though. A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation is allowed to give. That should be tightened up, and the ban should apply to any corporation with substantial foreign ownership. Eliminating dark money will also provide foreign money fewer places to hide. And the campaign finance laws should better apply to the universe of spending in the 21st century, including online spending. - IV
3
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
Another gap that concerns me is that there are very few disclosure rules for online spending. An influencer paid to tout a product has to disclosure that they are being paid and by whom. The same is not true for someone paid to tout a candidate. We have some evidence that foreign governments and individuals may be trying to influence U.S. voters that way. Its definitely something that Congress and the states can and should address. DW
1
u/Isentrope 1d ago
In NRSC v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down coordinated ad buy spending limits, which limited how much each authorized party committee (RNC, NRSC, NRCC) could spend in coordinated ad buys with candidates. Since these ad buys are entitled to the lowest unit charge, the money stretches way more on broadcast ads than superPAC money (a single ad during a football game at the LUC rate cost in Texas in late September cost 1/9th as much as a superPAC spending later on in the same game). The NRSC has spent at least $45M on these ads, and the RNC just announced this morning that they are going to spend $50M on downballot candidates as well, presumably with these types of ads.
Is there a way to avoid this nuclear arms race with this cash from coordinated ad buys? While the money to party committees is subject to contribution limits, those limits still allow a single donor to give something like $1M or more per election cycle if including transfers from state parties. If Congress were to just ban coordinated ad buys, would that run into constitutional issues based on the holdings in these campaign finance cases?
4
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
Great question. A ban on coordinated ad buys would probably not fare well with today’s courts.
What should be done? We support a strong role for parties in the campaign finance ecosystem, but not if they just act like super PACs. We would like to see parties encouraged to organize their voters, especially at the state and local level, rather than raise money from megadonors and spend it on negative TV ads. That could be done through partial public financing. And the higher contribution limits created in 2014 should be brought back down.
We are certainly in a campaign finance arms race, although the biggest weapons in that race are the super PACs, which take unlimited donations and can keep donors secrets. The party networks rely on their associated groups, sometimes called “shadow parties,” to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. Unlike super PACs, party committees themselves can’t take corporate and union donations, have to disclose their donors, and face contribution limits. But one of the biggest differences is that parties stick around from election to election and have to maintain their brand. We want to see reforms that would lean into the good aspects of parties. - IV
5
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
What is so frustrating about the NRSC ruling is that, once again, the Supreme Court barged in to substitute its own judgment for that of Congress while completely discounting the likelihood of unintended consequences -- the most obvious being that the national parties have now become yet another way to get around contribution limits for candidates (hence the arms race). Ian is right that the best solution is probably to restore reasonable limits on contributions to parties, ideally alongside some sort of public financing. Another thing that would help is to have a functional enforcement agency that people follow the remaining rules on the books. Some of what the parties currently do to move money between their various accounts likely stretches the limits of the law, but it doesn't really matter because the federal agency in charge of enforcement, the Federal Election Commission, rarely even investigates alleged violations (and in any event current does not even have a quorum of commissioners). DW
0
u/upvoter222 1d ago
What legally permitted activity related to campaign finance most makes you want to scream "How is that legal?"
What prohibited activity related to campaign finance most makes you want to scream "How is that illegal?"
1
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago edited 1d ago
The most scandalous thing that’s legal is unlimited donations to super PACs that are alter egos of campaigns. The campaign finance system that we created as a response to the corruption scandals of Watergate is at its weakest point now. It has been shot through with holes by Citizens United and other court decisions, by an FEC that has often weakened the rules (and now can’t enforce the law because it hasn’t had a quorum for most of this election cycle), and by political operatives who keep pushing the envelope of big money politics. Even though we still have contribution limits, megadonors can now give millions ($366 million in the case of Elon Musk) to super PACs that are supposed to operate “independently” of campaigns. But those groups use various strategies to work together, including sending staff from the campaign and communicating through their websites. - IV
1
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
If I had to name one thing where I really just think "this is crazy" its that people who make billions off federal contracts are free to give unlimited amounts to get candidates elected. The corruption risk is just so obvious.
I think there are a lot of rules still on the books that apply to ordinary donors that could be revaluated. Do we really need every person who gives $200 to a federal candidate to report their name and address? That rule dates back to the 1970s and should at least be adjusted for inflation. DW
-1
u/jh937hfiu3hrhv9 1d ago
How much money are democrats giving corporate media to fight republican lies and deception on corporate media and who are they? Is corporate media giving everyone an even playing field or serving those who give them tax breaks and shielding from liability? Greed is the problem. How do you stop greed while congressmen are bought by corporations to do their bidding?
1
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
I can't speak to the media question but most other developed democracies put limits on how much candidates and parties can raise for their campaigns from any one donor, as well as prohibiting conflicts of interest and gifts to public officials. These are the sort of basic guardrails we need too. DW
-1
u/rnk6670 1d ago
How can we do anything about the current situation? We’re way over the rainbow.
The bottom line is American democracy is a façade as long as money has this much power in our politics. And all we’re gonna get are broken, corrupted results. Rinse, repeat. We couldn’t be any more fucked.
1
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
I know how easy it is to feel discouraged. But this isn't the first time in American history that corruption has felt out of control, and major reforms often follow periods of extreme scandal and excess. It's not inevitable, but I do think change is possible. In the years I have been working on these issues, I have never seen an election in which public anger over corruption was so palpable. Candidates up and down the ballot are campaigning on the promise to address this problem and voters need to hold them to their commitments. DW
-2
u/Portarossa 1d ago
Not to put too fine a point on it, but... how fucked are we?
If we had to Doomsday Clock it, how bad are things right now? And how much worse do they get (assuming it does get worse) if the GOP maintains its majorities in November?
2
u/TheBrennanCenter Verified 1d ago
I mean, I think things are pretty bad, in the sense that the whole system of safeguards that we put in place after Watergate is almost dead. We're at the point where a single billionaire can easily prop up a major campaign through a super PAC. They can even do that while holding billions in government contracts. Apart from the obvious corruption risk, the public just hates this, and it is one of things driving the broader collapse in trust for government.
With respect to the GOP, I will just note that Republican voters hate the status quo and want to see Citizens United overturned by virtually the same margin as Democrats and Independents. Whoever may benefit from the status quo in the short term, I don't think its sustainable no matter who is in charge. DW
10
u/lookamazed 1d ago
Federal contractors are already barred from making political contributions, but that rule doesn't seem to reach the owner of a contracting company spending through super PACs. Is closing that gap realistic without a constitutional amendment, and what would the rule actually look like?