Every day I receive several e-mails begging me to join the “Undo Citizens United” group. The idea is presented that if enough people join the group and if enough money is collected from them then somehow, perhaps by magic, the “Citizens United” decision by SCOTUS will be overturned. Well, of course, that’s just salesmanship and cheering. That decision won’t be changed unless the next President is a Democrat and if one or more of the “conservative” justices decides to retire or dies. Even then, with the balance on the court shifted from five to four favoring conservatives to five to four favoring liberalism it is not certain that the court will agree to change the decision.
My point is (and I apologize for taking so long to get to it) that the real problem is that there is no way to limit the amount of money a candidate can spend running for office, according to another SCOTUS decision in 1976. That decision, Bckley vs. Valeo, voided all laws, state and federal, that placed any limit on the money a candidate could spend to advertise himself. The court accepted the argument that the first amendment freedom of speech stipulation prevented any limit on how much the candidate could spend. A counter argument that a candidate who spends a lot more money than his opponent is able to drown out the opponent’s free speech.l SCOTUS did not consider that argument.
Now let us suppose that by some means the Citizens United decision is reversed. Will the result be a decrease in money available to certain candidates? Not at all. Buckley vs. Valeo is still in effect. Rich people can still give great gobs of money to their favored candidates. Corporations won’t be able to donate money but rich CEO’s will still be allowed to donate as much as they please. The money will still flow. Reversing Citizens United won’t have the desired effect of reining in campaign spending.