“I thought it was an awful decision”: Dems still lament Citizens United 15 years later
The Supreme Court ruling that upended US politics a decade and a half ago has left Democrats internally plotting the best way to fight back.

👋🏾 Hi, hey, hello! Welcome back to Once Upon a Hill. My goodness, it is cold in the nation’s capital, y’all. I hope you’re staying warm wherever you’re reading from.
In this evening’s issue: Rep. Joe Morelle (N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, explains why the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee decision turned out to be much worse than he anticipated when the Supreme Court issued it on this day 15 years ago. Plus, details from a roundtable discussion he led this afternoon on the fallout from the ruling.
But let’s start with abortion politics. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Monday evening arranged for senators to open debate on a bill that would require health care providers to give care to an infant who survives an attempted abortion even if they’re already required by law to do so.
Critics say live births after an attempted abortion are extraordinarily rare and would apply to cases where abortion care was provided due to a risk to the pregnant person’s life. The House is also expected to consider a companion bill later this week. And if you’re curious about timing, Hill GOP leaders are pegging passage of the bill to this Friday’s annual March for Life anti-abortion rally in Washington, DC.
The Senate on Monday evening passed the Laken Riley Act. This bill, as you likely know by now, would require the federal government to detain undocumented immigrants who have been charged with theft in the US and empower state attorneys general to sue the federal government for perceived violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
12 Democrats supported the measure, including Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who voted against ending debate on the bill last Friday morning. Warnock explained his vote as a way to honor Riley's memory and support her family and community, despite the bill not being the one he would have written. He also lamented the lack of a robust debate on the legislation but reiterated his pledge to work towards comprehensive immigration reform.
“The only abiding way to fix our broken immigration system is for all of us to come together, put politics aside and center the people,” he said in a statement. “As a voice for Georgians in the Senate, I am fiercely committed to continuing to work across the aisle to find common ground and make progress on the issues Georgians and Americans care about.”
Jon Ossoff, Georgia’s other Democratic senator who’s up for reelection in 2026, supported the bill from the moment it came up for Senate consideration.
All 35 no votes were from Democrats, including 21 who voted to open debate on the bill nearly two weeks ago. Many were disappointed the bill lacked protections for Dreamers and Temporary Protected Status recipients.
Ahead of the vote, the Senate voted 75-24 for an amendment proposed by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) to require undocumented immigrants be deported if they commit a crime that results in death or serious bodily injury. 23 Democrats joined all voting Republicans in favor of the amendment while the remaining Dems supplied all the opposing votes. Ernst’s amendment followed the adoption of an amendment offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) last week to require undocumented immigrants who attack police officers to be detained. The vote was 70-25, with 21 Democrats voting with all Republicans in favor.
The bill returns to the House for another vote before it heads to President Trump’s desk, barring any surprises. The House Rules Committee met this afternoon to prepare the bill for floor consideration. 48 House Democrats voted for a previous less-expansive version of the Senate bill. How many will vote for the measure with the Cornyn and Ernst amendments attached remains to be seen.
The Senate unanimously confirmed Marco Rubio to be Secretary of State after it finished its business on the Laken Riley Act, making him the first candidate to be confirmed to Trump’s cabinet. Rubio is also the first Latino to be the nation’s top diplomat and the highest-ranking Hispanic and Latino official in US history. The 53-year-old is also the first person from Florida to hold the post.
President Trump nominated Rubio eight days after the 2024 election. Last week, he testified before his Senate colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee. On Monday, he was unanimously reported out of committee before his 99-0 confirmation on the Senate floor.
Rubio was the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee since 2010, a role that inspired confidence among senators from both sides of the aisle that he could effectively handle the complex global challenges facing the US even if they don’t agree with him on every policy issue.
Elected to the Senate in 2010 after two decades in Florida local and state politics, Rubio previously served as chair of the body’s Small Business Committee. And he unsuccessfully ran for the 2016 GOP presidential primary nomination, which Trump ultimately won on his way to his first presidential election. (Trump infamously nicknamed Rubio “Little Marco” during the primary.) During the primary, Rubio harshly criticized Trump as unfit for the presidency but ultimately endorsed him despite condemning Trump’s vulgar comments on women in the Access Hollywood tape. Now, Rubio is fourth in the presidential line of succession.
Ashley Moody, Florida attorney general appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) to replace Rubio, was sworn in today. (Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted was sworn in as Vice President JD Vance’s Senate successor as well.)
Several other Trump nominees advanced out of committee on Monday: Pete Hegseth to be Defense Secretary (Armed Services; 14–13), Kristi Noem to be Homeland Security Secretary (Homeland Security; 13–2), Russell Vought to be budget director (Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; 8–7) and John Ratcliffe to be CIA Director (Intelligence; 14–3). Veterans’ Affairs Secretary-designate Doug Collins testified before the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, while Ambassador to the United Nations-designate Elise Stefanik testified before the Foreign Relations Committee today. Ratcliffe is expected to receive a confirmation vote today.
Finally, among the flurry of significant executive orders President Donald Trump signed was one to delay the enforcement of the TikTok divest-or-ban law by 75 days. The law took effect on Sunday and even members of his party say the president is out of bounds since China is making no serious effort to sell the app. But as I wrote in Monday’s edition, Trump’s in this for the politics.
Back to Citizens United.
They had some of the best seats money could buy: Elon Musk of X and Tesla, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin, Sundar Pichai of Alphabet and Tim Cook of Apple were situated in the Rotunda of the US Capitol as President Trump was sworn into office for the second time.
These CEOs or their companies collectively donated millions of dollars to Trump’s inaugural committee. In Musk’s case, he contributed more than a quarter-billion dollars to entities associated with the Trump campaign to help the president complete his historic comeback.
And if you ask Hill Democrats, their presence was only made possible by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which passed 15 years ago today. The ruling held that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations, labor unions and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.
It set the stage for future high court decisions that authorized the creation of super PACs—a type of political action committee that can raise and spend unlimited funds from groups and individuals to influence elections independently from candidates—and struck down other campaign finance laws.
Rep. Morelle told me the inauguration was a manifestation of a nightmare that was much worse than he imagined it would be when the decision upended US politics in 2010. He assembled nearly 20 House Democrats and state and national campaign finance experts for a roundtable to discuss the danger they believe the decision poses to American democracy, but not before speaking with me outside the hearing room in the Longworth House Office Building.
“I thought it was, at the time, an awful decision. I continue to think it’s one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court’s made, particularly in this space around election law,” he said. “And I think we were afraid that people with enormous wealth would have undue influence on American politics. And I will say this, I’m not sure anyone could have predicted the degree to which that influence has grown.”
He said billionaires and executives at big corporations buying influence makes real people’s fears about wealthy people exerting outsized control of the federal government in service of their personal or business interests.
Marge Baker, vice president of the progressive advocacy group People For the American Way, which led a series of direct actions at the White House in 2021 to push former President Joe Biden to more strongly support and push for voting rights legislation, told me in a statement that democracies thrive when they represent the will of all the people, not just the wealthy and powerful.
“But the Citizens United decision undermined that principle, allowing dark money to flood out elections and giving the wealthy even more influence—at the expense of everyday Americans,” Baker said. “We applaud congressional Democrats for working to reform campaign finance laws and address the problem of big money in politics.”
Supporters of Citizens United claim it protects free speech, while critics argue it disproportionately empowers wealthy donors and special interest groups to influence the political process, including the oil and gas lobby, National Rifle Association and Big Pharma whose priorities Republicans have historically supported in policymaking. This influence, detractors add, also discourages bipartisanship.
Morelle told me the so-called “broligarchy,” the popular term for the small group of mostly men who control American economic and political power, has corrupted the spirit of Citizens United, which said unlimited campaign spending was only acceptable as long as it was independent and not directly coordinated with candidates and their campaigns.
“Elon Musk wrote $277 million worth of resources for the Trump campaign and they coordinated,” Morelle said. “I think the court anticipated that there would be no coordination among the people. So it’s hard to suggest to any reasonable person that any citizen has the same influence as someone who writes a $277 million check to the presidential campaign.”
Democrats at the roundtable said Citizens United also dissuades ordinary people from running for office because modern campaigns cost extraordinary amounts of money.
“Most people know I’m a daughter of immigrants, I’m the very first Latina in the entire midwest to ever serve in Congress,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said during the roundtable. “Why is that? Because it’s too damn expensive to run for Congress!”
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), the first Black woman from her state, co-signed her colleague, with whom she entered Congress in 2023.
“I do not come from money,” Lee said. “There is no one in my network, in my phone, who I can call and ask for and see the amount of money. And because there’s no such person in my network, there’s no such person in the networks, the people for whom are in my network, which means that people like me are systematically blocked from stronger than us in Congress. And when we think about who the best communicators around things are, it’s oftentimes the people who have the most lived experience, the people who have lived out the policy impacts that we've heard so many people talk about.”
And it’s not just Hill Democrats who have been calling on elected officials to ban dark money from politics.
Former President Joe Biden spent the bulk of his farewell speech last week warning Americans about the tech-industrial complex and calling for the elimination of massive sums of undisclosed campaign dollars from elections.
“I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern,” Biden said. “And that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked.”
It was clear that Democrats agreed on some of the solutions they think would level the playing field and restore Americans' trust in their institutions. These included passing the Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, granting statehood to the District of Columbia, amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United or reclaiming a Supreme Court majority that would do it.
However, Lee said Democrats won’t be able to advocate for these outcomes with integrity as long as members continue to accept big money in primary elections.
“It’s important that as Democrats, that we combat this with language and with courage. And that courage has to first start looking in the mirror before we can look outward,” she said. “So yes, we’re going to spend the next four to maybe 20 years talking about MAGA. We’re going to talk about fascism and oligarchy, but we have to also talk about ourselves and the role that we play in facilitating it or ending it. And we can end it by being one accord about getting money out of politics.”
Morelle said that he and House Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wisc.) share a great working relationship despite their differences on the issue and that there’s room for both parties to find common ground.
“They talk a lot about foreign interference, which we agree with them on. But we also think that just because you have enormous wealth, shouldn’t give you outsized influence over citizens and average Americans. It clearly does and we ought to be thinking about accountability or limitations on how much influence a single individual or a corporation,” Morelle said. “All of those things need to be thought about if we really care about this going forward and I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle too. Certainly, we as Democrats do.”
A spokesperson for Steil did not respond to a request for comment.
Do you have questions about the new Congress or the first 100 days of the second Trump presidency? Drop me a line at michael@onceuponahill.com or send me a message below to get in touch and I’ll report back with answers.