The decisive turning point that fundamentally transformed the system of campaign finance in the United States did not occur through congressional legislation, but rather through a ruling of the Supreme Court: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, issued in 2010. In this landmark decision, the Court held that restrictions on independent expenditures by legal entities—such as corporations and labor unions—violate the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Court’s majority, the fact that political speech originates from a collective entity does not diminish its constitutional value (Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
The ruling invalidated key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act), which had prohibited corporations from directly funding electioneering communications—such as political advertisements—within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The Court argued that such limits were an impermissible interference with the right to express political views, even when backed by significant financial means. This opened the door to the rise of so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees), organizations that, while not permitted to coordinate directly with candidates, can raise and spend unlimited sums of money to influence the outcome of elections.
This process of deregulation was further cemented by another Supreme Court decision, McCutcheon v. FEC, delivered in 2014. In that case, the Court struck down the aggregate limits on how much a single individual could contribute in total to federal candidates and committees during an election cycle. While the per-candidate contribution limits remained intact, the removal of the overall cap significantly increased the amount of money a single donor could inject into the political system (McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014)).
Both rulings are based on the controversial—and widely criticized—premise that money spent on political communication constitutes a form of political expression deserving of the highest constitutional protection. These decisions have had a profound impact on the democratic balance in the United States, amplifying the influence of the most powerful economic actors and raising serious questions about the ability of the electoral system to fairly represent the interests of the broader citizenry.