Most Americans rightfully believe that money corrupts our politics — and they want to overturn Citizens United. 

And yet, in two little-noticed cases — including one spearheaded by Vice President J.D. Vance — the Supreme Court could soon do the opposite, eliminating the last restrictions on campaign donations and bribery. To explain, investigative journalist David Sirota of The Lever. 

Do you feel like your voice matters when it comes to our politics?

No? I’m not surprised. The public effectively has no impact on legislation.

That’s because rich and powerful interests and their right-wing political allies have been executing a decades-long master plan to buy our political system. And it could get a whole lot worse due to several recent court cases. If that sounds depressing, it’s because it is. But there are ways to fight back.

You probably know about the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United case that opened the floodgates to unlimited election spending by outside groups, like corporations. In the case, justices ruled that corporations were people whose speech, including their political spending, could not be limited — gutting campaign finance laws established to rein in corruption and restore public trust after the Watergate scandal.

With this ruling, the conservative justices conjured the legal fiction that unlimited spending by those seeking to shape public policy “do[es] not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” I think the 75 percent of Americans who oppose Citizens United would disagree.

But Citizens United is far from the only Supreme Court case that has corrupted our democracy.

In Snyder v. United States, decided in 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the corruption conviction of an Indiana mayor who pocketed thousands of dollars from a local business tycoon after ensuring the tycoon’s company got a big municipal contract. The push to overturn the conviction, which was backed by powerful business groups and conservative think tanks, resulted in the high court ruling that such payments to government officials are not illegal if they are made after an official action takes place. 

Yes, it’s as absurd as it sounds. Through this ruling, the Court’s conservative justices ruled that these kinds of payments to politicians are not bribes, they are now “gratuities” — like, you leaving a nice tip for your waiter at a restaurant.  

It just so happens that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito backed this ruling after they accepted lavish gifts and trips from billionaire benefactors. Funny how that works, huh?

But all of this isn’t enough for conservatives and the oligarchs bankrolling them. The MAGA legal world is pushing two other cases that would make it even easier to buy elections, politicians, and public policy. 

The first case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, has already been accepted by the Supreme Court. Originally brought by then-Senate candidate JD Vance, this case aims to get rid of limits on political parties’ coordinated spending with candidates. The restrictions were put into place to prevent big donors from using political parties to get around individual donation limits.

This case is the next step in the right’s master plan to remove all limits on campaign spending, and builds on the absurd logic used in Citizens United. JD Vance and the Republican Party are claiming that this type of political spending, by definition, can’t be corrupt or even appear to be corrupt, because political parties pool money from many contributors. They argue that this means no single donor can exert “corrupting influence” and so the money shouldn’t be restricted. 

In essence, they’re asking the Supreme Court to believe a bank CEO’s donation to a political party coordinating with a lawmaker’s campaign can in no way influence how that lawmaker then drafts banking legislation.

The other case, Sittenfeld v. United States, concerns federal anti-bribery laws. It’s already hard enough to prosecute bribery, thanks to the Snyder case and decades of similar cases that have slowly chipped away at anti-corruption laws. Over the years, the Court has overturned corruption convictions of Democrats and Republicans alike.

This case, however, could take the Supreme Court’s legal assault on anti-bribery laws even further. 

Former Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfield is asking the Supreme Court to overturn his bribery conviction after he was convicted for accepting $20,000 worth of campaign contributions in exchange for supporting a local development project. 

Even though Sittenfield is a Democrat, he was actually already pardoned by Trump. And his appeal is being backed by major conservative groups, while his lawyer is Trump’s former solicitor general. So this case isn’t just about absolving one local official, it’s about absolving an entire system of corruption — and their arguments make that clear.

Sittenfield’s lawyers are arguing that pay-to-play culture is now so widespread that it shouldn’t even be considered a crime. They literally write that the situation is like “donor interactions undertaken every day by politicians at every level of government” and therefore it shouldn’t be prosecutable. They specifically cite reports of Donald Trump soliciting oil executives for $1 billion of campaign cash in exchange for pro-oil policies. They argue that that’s the kind of thing that could be prosecuted if Sittenfield’s conviction is allowed to stand – as if that would be a bad thing. 

Now, they’re not wrong that pay-to-play culture is pervasive in government. But the solution is stronger enforcement of anti-corruption laws, not less.

Corruption is the crisis creating every other problem. Again, do you want to know why it feels like Congress can never get anything done that actually helps regular people? It’s because of everything I just described.

We can’t rely on the Supreme Court, or Donald Trump, or any politicians corrupted by Big Money to overhaul this broken system. But there are real solutions that we can fight for.

Nationally, we can push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. This may seem unrealistic because it requires 38 out of 50 states to ratify it, but momentum is growing. 

And some states aren’t waiting for a national solution. Montana is pioneering a way to stop the flood of Big Money by changing how the state defines corporations’ powers. It’s a template other states can follow.

The Supreme Court has ruled many times that corporations are granted their powers by the states in which they operate. The Montana proposal would use that existing authority to change its law to no longer grant corporations the power to spend on any elections inside of Montana.

If Montana passes this, it’s not alone a national solution — but it does solve a big part of the Citizens United problem inside of Montana. Other states can do the same inside of their states - and the more states that do it, the more Citizens United is neutered — profoundly changing all of American politics.

The holy grail is public financing of elections, which gives qualifying political candidates public money for their campaigns, so that they do not have to rely on money from big donors seeking government favors. This isn’t some pie-in-the-sky idea — dozens of states and cities already do this, which means every other state and city can too. Sure, self-financed billionaire candidates and super PACS can still outspend publicly funded candidates. But public financing gives grassroots candidates enough resources to run competitive campaigns — and sometimes even win them.

These policies should be a no-brainer. But remember: oligarchs have an interest in undermining democracy. They know that in a functioning one-person-one-vote system, they could never pass the unpopular self-enriching policies they want. So they’re working hard to maintain the corrupt status quo that lets them buy political outcomes. 

They can still be stopped — but only if we finally make anti-corruption the central focus of our politics.