'Elon Musk spending zillions': Why Bernie Sanders wants to overturn Citizens United

Bernie Sanders recently criticised Elon Musk claiming that he was pouring “zillions of dollars into Donald Trump ’s presidential campaign” and asked for Citizens United , a landmark US Supreme Court ruling to be overturned.
He said: “Elon Musk – the richest guy in the world – is allowed to pour zillions of dollars into Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Does that sound like democracy to you? We need to overturn Citizens United and move to the public funding of elections.”

Elon Musk – the richest guy in the world – is allowed to pour zillions of dollars into Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

Does that sound like democracy to you?

We need to overturn Citizens United and move to the public funding of elections. pic.twitter.com/N0oNx6uMSX

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 1, 2024

Vivek Ramaswamy pointed out that the Dems also had its rich donors and wrote: “Funny how they didn’t have much to say about Citizens United for the last 10 years while the likes of George Soros & Reid Hoffman turned the Democrat Party into their play toy.”

Funny how they didn’t have much to say about Citizens United for the last 10 years while the likes of George Soros & Reid Hoffman turned the Democrat Party into their play toy. https://t.co/6OQrI2qSX2

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) November 1, 2024

According to Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) disclosures, Democrats have substantially out-raised and outspent Republicans in the current cycle, both in campaign funding and in funds raised by and for political action committees (Pacs). These Pacs are affiliated with presidential candidates but are, by law, established and operated independently.
Up to 16 October, the latest available returns indicated that Democrats raised $1.05 billion and spent $883 million, leaving nearly $120 million on hand. In contrast, Republicans raised $565 million, spending all but $52.6 million.

The inclusion of Pac money, however, has inflated these figures dramatically. While individual contributions directly to presidential candidates are capped at $3,300, no such restrictions apply to Pacs. According to the FEC, Pacs raised $13.5 billion from January 2023 to the end of the previous month.

The 2010 Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court decision and other subsequent rulings have enabled corporations, special interest groups, and wealthy individuals—including Elon Musk through his Trump-aligned America Pac—to make unrestricted contributions, granting them substantial influence in elections and their aftermath.

According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) disclosures, Democrats have substantially out-raised and outspent Republicans in the current cycle, both in campaign funding and in funds raised by and for political action committees (Pacs). These Pacs are affiliated with presidential candidates but are, by law, established and operated independently.

Up to 16 October, the latest available returns indicated that Democrats raised $1.05 billion and spent $883 million, leaving nearly $120 million on hand. In contrast, Republicans raised $565 million, spending all but $52.6 million.

The inclusion of Pac money, however, has inflated these figures dramatically. While individual contributions directly to presidential candidates are capped at $3,300, no such restrictions apply to Pacs. According to the FEC, Pacs raised $13.5 billion from January 2023 to the end of the previous month.

The 2010 Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court decision and other subsequent rulings have enabled corporations, special interest groups, and wealthy individuals—including Elon Musk through his Trump-aligned America Pac—to make unrestricted contributions, granting them substantial influence in elections and their aftermath.

What's Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission?

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 2010 that fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American campaign finance. The case arose when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, sought to air a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton close to the 2008 primary elections. However, under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (often called the McCain-Feingold Act), corporations and unions were prohibited from funding "electioneering communications" within a certain period before elections. Citizens United challenged this restriction, arguing it violated their First Amendment right to free speech.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Citizens United, effectively stating that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The ruling was based on the idea that political spending is a form of protected speech, and corporations, like individuals, have the right to engage in this speech.
The decision has had profound implications:

1. Increased Political Spending: It allowed corporations, unions, and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, provided the spending is "independent" of the candidates' campaigns.

2. Rise of Super PACs : Following the ruling, Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) emerged. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited funds from corporations, unions, and individuals, but they cannot directly coordinate with candidates or their campaigns.

3. Influence of Dark Money : The ruling also contributed to the rise of "dark money"—political spending by nonprofit organizations that do not disclose their donors.
While proponents argue that the decision upholds free speech and enables more voices to participate in the democratic process, critics contend it allows wealthy corporations and individuals disproportionate influence over elections, undermining democratic equality. The debate over Citizens United remains highly polarising and continues to shape discussions on campaign finance reform in the U.S.