Let's Celebrate The 13th Anniversary Of Citizens United By Killing It Dead

House Democrats introduced legislation this week to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court gave a decision that has negatively impacted our elections for the last 13 years and made people even more jaded about our system of politics than they ever were before. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) allowed for the creation of Super PACs and gave billionaires and corporations almost completely unlimited influence over our elections.

This week, a group of House Democrats introduced legislation that would create a constitutional amendment to undo that bullshit.  

The Democracy For All Act, introduced by Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), along with Reps. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) would overturn Citizens United and, according to a press release, "address the fundamental flaws underlying the Court’s reasoning in that and an entire line of cases dating back to the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which prevented meaningful regulation of campaign expenditures by corporations and special interest groups."

Specifically, it would:

• Make clear the Constitution does not restrict the ability of Congress or the states to propose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limitations on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections;

• Distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities, including by prohibiting the latter from spending unlimited amounts of money to influence elections;

• Allow states to enact public campaign financing systems, which can restrict the influence of corporate or private wealth; and

• Take further steps to protect the freedom of the press in the case of future campaign finance-related legislation.

“The flow of unrestricted corporate and dark money into our elections has dangerously eroded the American people’s faith in our democracy, and in our government’s ability to deliver for them and their families. Citizens United was one of the most egregious enablers of special interest money, but it was only the latest in a long line of Supreme Court cases that opened the floodgates. To truly rein in dark money, we must amend our Constitution,” said Schiff in a statement. “The Democracy for All Amendment will close legal loopholes that wealthy megadonors, corporations, and special interest groups have exploited for far too long, and return power to the people once and for all.”

“Corporations are not people and money is not speech,” said Jayapal. “In every election following Citizens United , billions of dollars of dark money have been dumped into our electoral system, giving corporations and the richest Americans outsized power and influence. It’s time to ensure our democracy works for all people by getting big money out of politics and ensuring every voter’s voice is heard.”

Yes to all of that!

This is not new. Schiff has introduced this legislation every year since 2013, making this the tenth year in a row he has done so. But you know what? I think the time is right for it. It's also an especially good time to point out that zero Republicans — the ones always whining about the elections being rigged or unfair — have signed on so far. There are very few things at this point that most Americans agree on, but practically no one who isn't personally a politician likes Citizens United . Very few people are out there saying "You know, I wish billionaires had even more influence on politics!"

I conceded that there are a few contrarians here and there who will defend it, but by and large, it just makes people feel gross .

One of the grand ironies of Citizens United is that it actually made people feel less inclined to vote. It exponentially the amount spent by political campaigns, but those campaigns were arguably likely less successful in getting people to the polls than they might have been without all of that money.

I can't say for certain what the impact is now, because there just aren't as many opinion polls on the decision as there used to be, but a 2012 poll conducted by the Brennan Center found that 26 percent of Americans said that the existence of Super PACS made them less likely to vote, while 41 percent of respondents said they "believe that their votes don’t matter very much because big donors to super PACs have so much more influence." These percentages were much higher among low-income individuals and those without a college degree, which makes sense given the unlikelihood of billionaires with Super PACs sharing their interests.

It's possible that this has changed somewhat, but people never really feel good about this kind of thing, do they? Like, there are people who are willing to put up with it as "just the way things are," people who will argue that they don't really matter, people who will argue that other people are spoiled brats who make too big a thing out of it, but not that many people who think "Yes, this is a wonderful and perfect system. No notes." At least not many I have come across. Polls repeatedly find that most Americans want campaign finance reform, want to limit the amount that is spent on campaigns, etc.

The 2022 midterm campaign was the most expensive in American history, running up a grand total of $2 billion in outside spending, according to Open Secrets . It is getting ridiculous and embarrassing and it's time to put an end to it.

13 years has been long enough.

 Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons .

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!