ABSTRACT
Many commentators criticize the Court’s decision in Citizens United, arguing that it inflicted substantial damage to the integrity of the democratic process.1 In a 5-4 decision,
the Court invalidated a law that strove to reduce the influence of money in politics and equalize all speakers’ ability to meaningfully influence and gain access to public officials. At first glance, Citizens United appears to have enshrined inequality into the democratic process because the Court’s holding allows corporations to use general treasury funds to make independent expenditures to political candidates. This gives some corporations a louder – and more powerful – voice in the electoral and political process, provides corporations with favored access to elected officials, and renders the votes of millions of citizens at the ballot box more symbolic than real.
