Recently, during a conversation on Joe Rogan’s podcast, independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders expressed his belief that there is widespread agreement on the corruption in the campaign finance system. However, I find myself disagreeing with that notion.
Sanders went on to label the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United as perhaps the worst decision in the court’s history. Really? There are past rulings like Dred Scott, which deemed the descendants of slaves as not being American citizens; Plessy v. Ferguson, legitimizing racism under the guise of “separate but equal”; or Buck v. Bell, sanctioning forced sterilizations. Not to forget Korematsu v. United States, which supported the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Kelo v. New London allowed government seizure of property ostensibly for economic development. Yet, for Sanders, the ruling that upholds the free political speech rights of all Americans is somehow the worst.
Ironically, Citizens United is considered by some to be one of the most populist decisions made by the Supreme Court. To really understand this ruling requires moving beyond the narrow interpretations often presented by people like Sanders.
The case actually stemmed from a nonprofit that violated federal laws by attempting to air a documentary critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the primary elections. Meanwhile, the same laws allowed corporate media to freely discuss candidates and even coordinate messages without any consequences. Yet individuals wanting to form nonprofits and advocate against or in support of candidates found themselves restricted.
During the Supreme Court oral arguments on March 24, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out the absurdity of the ban on free speech, questioning whether the government could also prohibit the publication of a book if it contained even a single line encouraging votes for certain candidates. When asked the question, Deputy Director Malcolm Stewart confirmed that indeed, the government could impose that limitation.
It seems, then, that Sanders is hinting at a desire to restrict speech, which is troubling. His push to overturn Citizens United could effectively side with politicians who prefer to silence opposition while shielding themselves and the media from the same restrictions.
Moreover, Sanders’ argument overlooks a significant fact: money doesn’t equate to guaranteed election wins. If that were true, Hillary Clinton would have defeated Donald Trump in 2016, and other candidates who spent more money would have fared better. What money does is afford opportunities for messages to reach voters, who ultimately make their own decisions. Claiming that financial influence enslaves voters only serves to muddy that reality.
What Sanders fails to understand is that Citizens United has enabled a diversification of political voices. It has allowed everyday people to organize and advocate for issues that they care about. Following the ruling, there has been a noticeable increase in grassroots political donations; indeed, Trump raised more small-dollar contributions than any candidate before him, and Sanders himself gained traction after the verdict.
It’s also worth noting that Sanders’ criticism seems to be largely fueled by his disapproval of spending by pro-Trump entities. During the podcast, Rogan reminded him that Democrats have also benefited from independent spending.
What Sanders should recognize is that earlier cases like Buckley v. Valeo paved the way for independent expenditures without limits, and SpeechNow v. FEC established pathways for collective citizen funding through super PACs. Citizens United merely reinforced these rights, solidifying the First Amendment protections for corporations and unions as well.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that political speech is protected under the First Amendment. If Senator Sanders is sincere in his pledge to uphold the Constitution, he should not use a major platform to promote government censorship. Instead, he ought to champion the Supreme Court’s decision that empowers ordinary citizens to challenge established political powers.
