It is generally accepted that large amounts of money corrupt the election process. Wealthy people, unions and corporations often make campaign donations to gain access to elected officials and influence policy. The 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a Supreme Court case that has had a huge effect on political campaigns. The court ruled that corporations, unions and other entities have the same First Amendment right of free speech as individuals. It also ruled that campaign contributions are a form of free speech. This decision removed the ban on corporations and organizations from using the funds in their treasuries to support or oppose a candidate’s campaign.

Critics disagree that corporations and unions have the same free speech rights as people. They say money is not speech and that humans, not corporations, are those who are entitled to constitutional rights. They say Citizen’s United has resulted in viewers being bombarded with untruthful campaign ads. And they warn the infusion of unlimited money into our political process will enable these entities to buy our elections. Recent data from late 2025 shows strong, bipartisan opposition to unlimited election spending, with polls finding majorities (around 60-70%) disagreeing with the decision, seeing it as a threat, and supporting reforms, cutting across party lines (Democrats, Independents, and even many Republicans). As of recent reports, around 22 to 23 states have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, with some sources noting nearly 800 local governments joining in.

Pending Joint Resolution: H.J.Res.54 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only
Sponsor: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA)
Status: House Committee on the Judiciary
Chair: Rep. Jim Jordan (OH)