American politics have been dominated by moneyed interests for decades, but recent election cycles have seen an acceleration in special interest spending. That’s  particularly true when it comes to the richest Americans, due to a dreadful 2010 decision by the United States Supreme Court. 

According to a New York Times report, billionaire contributions made up nearly a fifth of all federal campaign donations during the 2024 cycle. The Times found that 300 billionaires and their families contributed $3 billion during the last cycle, either directly to candidates or thorough political action committees. 

The exorbitant spending, and the all-too-predictable benefits accruing to the wealthy as a result, was made possible by the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United vs. FEC case. Before Citizens United, there were distinct limits on what could be spent by organizations rather than individuals. 

Citizens United overruled that statute, opening the door to unlimited political spending by classifying corporate political donations as expressions of free speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the brief for the narrow majority, explained that limiting spending essentially would curb the Constitutional protection of free speech. That decision meant that there are, in practice, no longer any meaningful campaign finance restrictions.

The tagline “corporations are people” has become synonymous with the decision. The court ruled that because corporations are composed of citizens, they should be guaranteed the same rights.

A dramatic increase in spending has been seen nationally and locally. In San Francisco, spending by a conservative network of political pressure organizations fueled 2022 recalls as well as the 2024 San Francisco mayoral race and the takeover of the local Democratic Party. Much of that money spent came from billionaire-backed TogetherSF and  Neighbors For a Better San Francisco and the ascendant GrowSF, bankrolled by tech elites. They’ve spent millions to move the city rightward, fighting against taxes and regulations, and promoting conservative approaches to homelessness, policing and drug use.

Despite being unpopular with Americans across the political spectrum, moves to modify Citizens United have been slow to materialize. That is, until recently. Efforts to curb unfettered political spending by Montana, Maine and Hawaii have begun to gain traction.  

Montana

In Montana, a generally solidly Republican state, a statewide ballot measure called the Transparent Election Initiative aims to nullify Citizens United. The crux of the argument is this: Since corporations are chartered by states, their power is granted by state governments. 

That allows individual states to rewrite their charters so that corporations are barred from financially contributing to political campaigns. This unique strategy, put forward by a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is predicated on more than a hundred years of Supreme Court decisions. A company must comply with each state’s charter — regardless of where it is actually incorporated. So, a company incorporated in Delaware that wants to spend money on Montana elections, can’t. 

The measure is on Montana’s November ballot. If passed, it will represent the first substantive challenge to Citizens United. It would come on the heels of an election in which Republican Tim Sheehy ousted Democratic U.S. Senator Jon Tester, after $47 million from 64 billionaires and their family members, went to Sheehy’s campaign. 

Montana’s ballot measure has, predictably, provoked the ire of a coalition of mining, trucking and petroleum associations, which attempted to block the measure from appearing on the November ballot. The state’s Supreme Court dismissed the challenge in early April. 

Maine

Maine’s ballot measure calls for specifically limiting Super PAC contributions. It has, unsurprisingly, faced a legal challenge from conservative groups. They argue that the precedent set by a lower court case, SpeechNow v. FEC, allows for unlimited Super PAC spending. 

It is a shrewd effort to force the Supreme Court to reconsider the Citizens United ruling, as well as assess SpeechNow, as there is now more than a decade-and-a-half of evidence detailing the devastating consequences of unlimited money in politics, as well as the corruption that frequently ensues as a result.

The original SpeechNow decision held that because Super PACs are independent (they are prohibited from coordinating with political candidates) their influence is limited. Briefs written by the measure’s proponents point to Democratic U.S. Senator Bob Menendez and Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder as examples of political officials who were successfully prosecuted for corruption related to Super PACs.  

Hawaii

Hawaii’s Senate Bill 2471 also uses the Center for American Progress’ strategy of rewriting the charter to prevent corporations from spending on elections in order to strip corporations from exerting undue political influence. It passed both houses of the state legislature by overwhelming margins. State representative Chris Muraoka, a Republican, cast the only “no” vote claiming that the bill would be struck down by the court and would result in Hawaiian taxpayers footing the bill. Hawaii’s Governor Josh Green signed off on the law May 14th, and it is set to go into effect on July 1, 2027.

Debates in Hawaii’s legislative chambers centered around the outsized influence of dark money. One member cited the 1819 John Marshall opinion in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward and drew a connection to the American colonization of Hawaii in 1893, which was executed and supported by sugar executives. In 2010, there was $144 million of dark money spent in U.S. Federal elections. By the end of 2024, that number had ballooned to $1.9 billion.  

Taken together, these three challenges from Montana, Maine and Hawaii, represent the first meaningful pushbacks against the cataclysmic Citizens United decision and an opportunity to reshape the American political landscape. It’s unsurprising that it’s been met with antagonism from the country’s richest. 

Despite billionaire’s best efforts, these measures are poised to pass with massive popular support, providing the impetus for similar legislative attempts in other states. Indeed, a recent study from the Pew Research Center shows that roughly 70% of Americans have identified money in politics as being a critical issue. Such a push is just a possibility but, as exorbitant money continues to pour into local, regional and federal elections, it’s becoming an increasing necessity.