Thom Hartmann writes here about the most consequential Supreme Court decision of our time: Citizens United. That decision unleashed the power of big money to control our politics. It’s consequences have diminished our ability as a nation to take action on pressing issues. It has allowed the Uber-rich to buy politicians. That always existed to some extent. Citizens United established the practice as business as usual.
Hartmann writes:
According to Talkers Magazine, the “Bible of the Talk Radio Industry,” I talk with around 6 million people every week on my nationally syndicated call-in radio/TV show. What I’m hearing, increasingly (I’ve been doing this program for 20 years now), is frustration bordering on despair about the inability of America to get basic, necessary things done.
Why is it, people ask, that we can’t do anything about guns amidst all these mass shootings? Or homelessness? Or affordable healthcare and education? Why are we moving so slowly on climate change? How did social media get excused from responsibility for its own content and then become overrun by Putin bots and Nazis?
And why do we let the billionaires who own social media (along with all the other billionaires) get away with only paying an average 3.2% income tax when the rest of us are making up for it by paying through the nose? Why can’t Congress pass a simple budget or raise taxes enough to stop running deficits?
What happened, people ask, that caused America’s politicians — in the years after JFK — to stop listening to the people who elect them? Why is it that (other than tax cuts), when Republicans have power or the ability to block Democrats efforts, nothing gets done?
The simple and tragic answer to all these questions comes back to a single root cause: money in politics. Or, to be more specific, Republicans on the Supreme Court having legalized political bribery (and, thus, functional ownership) of judges and legislators, both federal and state.
In 1976, in response to an appeal by uber-rich New York Republican Senator James Buckley, the Court ruled that wealthy people in politics couldn’t be restrained from using their own money to overwhelm their political opponents. They then went a step farther and struck down other limitations on billionaires using their own money to “independently” promote the campaigns of politicians they like.
Their rationale was that restrictions on rich people buying political office “necessarily reduce the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”
In other words, for morbidly rich people to have “free speech,” they must be able to spend as much money on politicking as they want. If you don’t have millions or billions, your free speech is pretty much limited to how loud you can yell: this was a decision almost entirely of, by, and for the morbidly rich.
Two years later, in 1978, four Republicans on the Court went along with a decision written by Republican Lewis Powell himself in declaring that corporations are “persons” entitled to human rights under the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution), including the First Amendment right of free speech.
And free speech, as they’d established two years earlier, meant the ability to shovel money into political campaigns. Effective in April of 1978, elections could go to whoever spent the most money.
Democrats largely ignored the rulings (until 1992). They hadn’t been the party of the rich since the 1920s, and, with a third of American workers in a union, those unions provided plenty of money for political campaigns.
But Republicans — specifically, the 1980 Reagan campaign — jumped forward with both hands out for all the cash they could grab. The gift they offered wealthy people who supported them? Tax cuts, even if they drove the deficit sky high.
There were still quite a few campaign restrictions in place in 2010, when five Republicans on the Supreme Court did it again, striking down literally hundreds of state and federal laws and regulations by doubling-down on their assertion that “money is free speech” and “corporations are persons with human rights.”
Thus, we can track many of the worst aspects of America’s political dysfunction to these three corrupt Supreme Court decisions, as I detail in The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America and The Hidden History of American Oligarchy.
Prior to the Court’s Citizens United decision, for example, there was a bipartisan consensus in Congress that climate change was caused by burning fossil fuels and that we should do something about it, as Senator Sheldon Whitehouse so eloquently documents.
John McCain campaigned for president on a platform of doing something about climate change: he was the lead cosponsor of the Climate Stewardship Act, which had multiple other Republican cosponsors. At the time, he said:
“While we cannot say with 100 percent confidence what will happen in the future, we do know the emission of greenhouse gases is not healthy for the environment. As many of the top scientists through the world have stated, the sooner we start to reduce these emissions, the better off we will be in the future.”
The Clean Air Planning Act was supported by Republican Senators Lamar Alexander, Lindsay Graham, and Susan Collins. Republican Senator Olympia Snow was the lead cosponsor of the Global Warming Reduction Act of 2007. Multiple Republicans supported the Low Carbon Economy Act and the Clean Air/Climate Change Act.
In 2009, Republicans supported the Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act and the Waxman-Markey carbon cap-and-trade proposal. Maine Republican Susan Collins was the lead cosponsor of the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act, a bill that would have imposed a fee on burning fossil fuels. At the time, she said:
“In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Clearly climate change is a daunting environmental challenge…”
And then, in 2010, everything changed.
Clarence Thomas, actively groomed for decades by fossil fuel and other billionaires, became the deciding vote in Citizens United, legalizing not only his own corruption but that of every Republican in Congress.
Once the fossil fuel industry could pour unlimited money into either supporting — or, perhaps more importantly, destroying — the candidacy of any Republican politician, every Republican in the House and Senate began to say, “What climate change?”
As Senator Whitehouse said on the floor of the Senate:
“I believe we lost the ability to address climate change in a bipartisan way because of the evils of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Our present failure to address climate change is a symptom of things gone awry in our democracy due to Citizens United. That decision did not enhance speech in our democracy; it has allowed bullying, wealthy special interests to suppress real debate.”
When Poppy Bush was president, the world confronted a crisis with acid rain destroying monuments and buildings; Democrats and Republicans came together and put into law a sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade “free market solution” that largely solved the problem.
Why can’t we do the same with a cap-and-trade system for carbon pollution from fossil fuels like the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea have already done? Citizens United.
Similarly, why can’t America get our gun crisis under control? We’re the only country in the world where schoolchildren are subjected to the monthly terror of active shooter drills.
Bullets are the leading cause of death among our nation’s children. But no Republican will take on the issue because they know the firearms industry and its front groups will destroy them with a waterfall of money for their inevitable opponent in the next election. Citizens United.
Our public schools are crumbling as the charter and private school industries pour millions into politicians’ coffers. Instead of fixing our schools and raising our educational standards, the private school industry has gotten Republican governors in several states to offer vouchers to every student in the state.
It’s busting the budgets of states (once the public schools are dead, they’ll cut back on the generosity of the vouchers), but making literally billions in profits for the private school industry — money that’s then, in part, recycled back to the politicians promoting their interests. Citizens United.
Please, please, please open the link and read the rest of this brilliant article.

Diane your blog is wonderful. Just when I become downtrodden I have your work to open a light. All of today’s blogs have given me hope. Thank you
LikeLike
Thank you, Greg! I needed that!
LikeLike
Diane Ravitch is a light in the current darkness.
LikeLike
Yes!
LikeLike
It’s funny that DudeBro Josh Hawley and Mitch McConnell are duking this issue out right now. Josh is laying it bare with a bill on the issue and Mitch is telling anyone who sides with DudeBro’s bill that they will be shown the door for lack of $$$$ to finance their campaigns. Truth of the matter is….
1) McConnell has gotten where he is and stayed an establishment because of the $$$$ from CU
2) Hawley was a law clerk for Roberts at the time of the CU decision so he knows the ins/outs of the issue
3) Hawley’s bill has very little “teeth” thus letting CU continue on without changing the most damaging parts
Sounds like DudeBro wants to be re-elected and needs a “schtick” for campaign fodder AND the young ones are tired of the old timers hanging on to ruin their plan. It’s a 2 for 1 for Josh Hawley if he can pull it off. Josh thinks he’s slick, but he’s just as awful as Mitch McConnell on just about everything.
LikeLike
The voters that NEED to read this and NEED to understand this never will.
MAGAts
LikeLike
“If America is to recover any semblance of meaningful democracy in our country, we must cut out the cancer of big money in our political system by overturning Citizens United.”
Even if we despise what has happened in our politics, we have to appreciate how skillfully and doggedly the GOP has played the long game to get to this inevitable impasse. We also must accept that the Democrats have ignored most of the problems and, in fact, sometimes they have been part of the problem. Government of, by and for the people is merely a past aspiration that is lost in a sea of dark money under Citizens United. In addition to all three branches of government that are needed to confront the problem, I believe we are headed into a time of great political strife that I think will be led mostly by young people that are impatient with the rigged economy and unwilling to wait for some miracle to save us from the oligarchy, particularly if the GOP wins in 2024.
LikeLike
Democrats have been far outpacing Republicans in dark money fundraising for a while now.
LikeLike
What do they DO with it, versus the Republicans?
LikeLike
Elect politicians.
LikeLike
How does that hold up when issue orientated PACs are included. Donations directly to Candidates are only part of the story. Attack ads on your opponent as being for this or against that as long as there is no coordination is a big part of the story .
LikeLike
My only claim here is that Democrats are using more dark money than Republicans. Whether that’s good or bad or something to be dismissed out of hand, I leave to others.
LikeLike
Flerp is avoiding the question. Okay, the dark money is used to elect politicians…but politicians who DO what?
Obama’s presidency was different, and I think the record makes clear, far better for America than the administration of George W. Bush.
The Biden presidency has been called “transformative” — positively transformative — by any number of political observers.
Or, another way to put the question, is what about politicians who get elected anf fail to do what they could or should to help solve America’s problems. The Washington Post put it like this in a news story a month ago:
“Americans are more likely to die before age 65 than residents of similar nations, despite living in a country that spends substantially more per person on health care than its peers…Many of those deaths can be traced to decisions made years ago by local and state lawmakers over whether to implement cigarette taxes, invest in public health or tighten seat-belt regulations…States’ politics — and their resulting policies — are shaving years off American lives.
“State lawmakers gained autonomy over how to spend federal safety net dollars following Republican President Ronald Reagan’s push to empower the states in the 1980s. Those investments began to diverge sharply along red and blue lines, with conservative lawmakers often balking at public health initiatives they said cost too much or overstepped. Today, people in the South and Midwest, regions largely controlled by Republican state legislators, have increasingly higher chances of dying prematurely compared with those in the more Democratic Northeast and West…”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2023/republican-politics-south-midwest-life-expectancy/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f001
LikeLike
Obama’s presidency was in many respects a continuation of that of George Bush, Jr. He packed his cabinet with big money fat cats from the financial industry. He bailed out the banks instead of homeowners. He opted for Romneycare instead of Medicare for all. His foreign policy was indistinguishable from Bush’s. Chomsky calls him “the worst president for civil liberties in our history.”
LikeLike
And as much as Obama pandered to the Republicans, they still hated him because race.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd
Was Clinton Black? Other than playing the Saxophone
“the era of big government is over,”
NAFTA
Welfare to Work
Financial Services Modernization Act
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
I would say Republicans after Reagan felt that any Democrat in power was not legitimate. And any means of regaining or maintaining power was! Being accommodating of Republican policy meant little.
LikeLike
Democracy, I’m just correcting a factual error, the idea that dark money is a Republican thing. Beyond that, I take no position because I think this stuff is complicated and frankly I haven’t made up my mind about where I stand on dark money and Citizens United.
You make the point that Democrats elected with dark money are better than Republicans. Maybe so. But if that’s how people here view things, then they should stop acting like dark money and Citizens United are terrible things.
LikeLike
My view: all campaign contributions should be a matter of public record. The definition of Dark Money is unreported. The public should know who is funding the people running for office.
LikeLike
If the money referenced in the post dries up, it may have limited affect on the exercise of authoritarian power by the Christian/Catholic theocracy.
Consider the religious majority on SCOTUS, the religious cases taken up by the Jones Day law firm (Trump administration), Becket Law, ADF, etc.
the lobbyists of the Catholic Conferences, the DC-based EPPC and CNP, the public policy advocates in the Catholic/Christian universities like Hillsdale and Notre Dame, the political ascendency of men like Mike Johnson, Steve Bannon and Ron DeSantis, the political clout of men like Leonard Leo, Robert P George and Adrian Vermuele, the hosts of Fox who are right wing religionists, etc.
Dark money with theocrats in power is disastrous for democracy. Dark money eliminated and theocrats who are zealots of unfettered capitalism, anti-woman and anti-gay and, who are still in power will continue to advance the right wing.
I’m concerned about the following. Twenty-four large law firms signed a letter sent to law college deans. In the letter, they took a position against anti-Semitism on campuses. Of the top 30 firms in size in the nation, 11 signed. The name of the Jones Day firm (ranked between 6 and 9th in size) was not among those listed as signing. Firms with strong links to advancing religious views (I don’t know how singular Jones Day is in that regard) may have convincing arguments for not signing.
LikeLike
The list of signatories has grown substantially and includes Jones Day.
Why are you concerned that many large law firms took a position against anti-semitism?
LikeLike
Flerp.
Thank you for reading my comment and for the update.
New paragraph- two choices for reply,
A. Softly guide to correctness
B. Weaponize a dense fruitcake to take the offender out
LikeLike
Sorry, I don’t understand.
My question, which I’m still curious about, was why you find it concerning that large law firms have taken a position against anti-semitism.
LikeLike
Maybe a concentration won’t form around your “confusion” (borrowing from a Charles Wilson quote about people and plans).
LikeLike
Linda, why are you concerned that law firms took a position against anti-semitism?
LikeLike
Flerp
“The following” was developed in the 5 sentences that followed.
As example, the recipe is as follows,…, bake in oven.
As example, changing a tire requires the following steps ,… , remove jack
As example, BOLO follows, …, consider the person armed.
The purpose of communication is to communicate. Distortion/distraction is frequently a lawyer’s goal when parsing.
LikeLike
But please do tell us what you think of Catholics and Catholicism.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting to find out why it’s concerning that law firms took a position against antisemitism but apparently that one is too hot to handle.
LikeLike
Bob.
You have a lot of company for your attitude. No mainstream media and only a couple of local media reported that bishops in Ohio spent almost a million dollars to convince Ohioans, in Aug. 2023, to deny themselves feasible citizen referendums against Ohio’s religious right legislature, courts and Governor. The bishops were among the top 5 spenders for the issue. Another top spender was a group founded by Robert P George (not identified in media).
Btw- Ohio’s bishops falsely claimed to the public that they had no position on the ballot issue in August because it “contained no moral content.”
School choice began in Ohio as the result of a surreptitious deal made by the Catholic Republican governor and the bishops. (Akron Beacon Journal, Dec. 14, 1999.
LikeLike
I was just curious about what you thought about these matters. It’s so difficult to tell from your multiple posts every day about them. LOL.
Just kidding
LikeLike
Ohio supported retaining their right to put abortion in the state constitution in the August 2023 election.
LikeLike
Ohioans, by majority vote in Aug., retained their right to have referendums. The legislation introduced in Issue 1 included an increase in the required signee percentage and added a requirement for signatures in all counties which made it impossible to succeed with any referendums going forward.
Ohio’s theocracy wanted to destroy democracy in Ohio. August’s Issue 1 had no reference to abortion, gay rights, etc.
LikeLike
Citizens United was a simple (purposeful) misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights. A citizen has rights. A group of citizens does not.
LikeLike
You mean Hobby Lobby doesn’t really have religious freedom rights?
LikeLike
Per SCOTUS, the for-profit Hobby Lobby can deny civil rights to its employees (exemption from mandated birth control insurance coverage).
Per SCOTUS (Biel v. St. James Catholic school) religious school employers are exempted from civil rights employment law.
Expect citizens to lose more rights – taxpayers have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer.
LikeLike
Perfect example. If you make a company, the company has no more rights than does a lampshade you made. Lampshades don’t have rights. You have rights; your company does not. You have the right to life. Your company can be legally killed by, for example, Elon Musk. From a religious perspective, God, creating all men and women equal, gives you freedom when He gives you the breath of life. He does not grant that freedom to stones.
LikeLike
…even if a bunch of stones are placed together as a building, whether a pyramid or a skyscraper with a Trump sign out front.
LikeLike
Does the New York Times have no first amendment rights because it is not a natural person?
LikeLike
NY Times reporters have freedom of the press specifically stated in the 1st Amendment. Freedom of the press is one of the five parts of freedom of speech. But what about X, the Company Formerly Known as Twitter? Does X, as Elon Musk insists, have freedom of speech? No. X is not press. The individuals posting to X have rights. X does not. And what about the AI bots posting to X? Do algorithms have rights? Ridiculous, huh. People have rights. Things don’t.
LikeLike
Pssst.
Freedom of the “press.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
LikeLike
Right, I should’ve said freedom of press was one of five parts of freedom of religion.
LikeLike
LCT, you think the government should be able to bar the NYT from publishing stories because it’s a corporation? I disagree and I’m glad the law says you’re wrong
LikeLike
No, I said the NYT does indeed have 1st Amendment rights. Very much so.
LikeLike
While The New York Times has the right to be free press and publish articles of fact and opinion, however, The New York Times Company should not have the right to donate vast sums of money to political action committees and drown out the voices of less wealthy, individual citizens with paid advertising. Our government should not be corrupted by wining and dining or dark money. The Supreme Court jesters ruled wrongly on Citizens United, and they likely did so accepting gifts from billionaires. Before Citizens United, The New York Times had freedom of speech. Now, The New York Times has freedom of speech and a corrupt government to rule over it.
LikeLike
exactly
Our congresspeople should wear suits like those worn by NASCAR drivers, with the logos of the corporations that support them plastered all over them, head to toe.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Diane, Thom’s radio show (also on Free Speech TV) reaches millions of listeners. I think it would be a real benefit to our country and to public education if you could be a guest on his show. So many Americans do not truly understand the insidious, long-standing war against our public schools.
(Apologies if you have already been a guest. Thom’s program runs in my area during the school day and it’s hard to get a chance to listen to most of the time. )
LikeLike
Eleanor,
I would love to be on Thom’s radio show. I’m sorry to say that I have never met him.
LikeLike
Diane, I went ahead and sent an e-mail to the show (making it clear that I am a reader, and not in any official capacity, asking them to consider having you on as a guest.
Please let us know ahead of time when you are booked on the show! I will find a way to take a break and listen! 🙂
Thank you for everything you do for us.
LikeLike
Thank you, Eleanor. My guess is that Thom sees the Big Grift targeted at the schools.
LikeLike