Reassessing Citizens United: A Conservative Case for Restoring Sovereignty, Accountability, and Republican Self-Government

IT'S TIME TO PUT AN END TO THE ENDLESS $ INFLUENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS

Executive Summary

The 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC removed limits on independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and associations under the First Amendment. Though defended at the time on free speech grounds, the ruling’s practical effects have diverged sharply from its doctrinal assumptions.

Fifteen years later, America’s political landscape is dominated not by individual speakers but by tax-exempt foundations, NGOs, labor unions, university endowments, donor-advised funds, and foreign-adjacent philanthropic vehicles. Many of these actors receive public subsidies, indirect taxpayer support, or foreign capital, making the original “private speech” premise of the decision increasingly untenable.

The question for policymakers is no longer whether Citizens United protects free speech. It is whether the jurisprudence has empowered unelected institutions to exercise political influence at scale — without transparency, without electoral accountability, and in some cases without clear national allegiance.

This white paper presents the conservative case for revisiting or legislatively constraining the Citizens United architecture in order to:

1. Protect democratic self-government

2. Prevent taxpayer-financed partisan activity

3. Mitigate foreign and sovereign-influenced political operations

4. Reinforce the role of citizens — not foundations or NGOs — in elections

5. Restore republican principles consistent with originalist constitutional thought

I. Background and Context

A. The Ruling and Its Rationale

The majority in Citizens United advanced three key propositions:

1. Political expenditures are political speech under the First Amendment.

2. Corporations and associations are aggregates of individuals and therefore cannot be barred from political spending.

3. Independent expenditures do not create corruption, defined narrowly as quid-pro-quo bribery.

The Court assumed a political ecosystem composed of individuals, candidates, and parties interacting in an open marketplace of ideas.

B. The Post-2010 Political Economy

The empirical reality of post-Citizens United politics diverges significantly:

• Political influence migrated to institutional actors with perpetual lifespans and large balance sheets.

• Expenditures moved into dark channels outside disclosure (501(c)(4), LLC pass-throughs, DAFs).

• Campaign power shifted from parties to NGO networks and philanthropic ecosystems.

• Federal and state funding has indirectly subsidized political messaging via contractors and social services agencies.

• Foreign influence exploits tax-exempt vehicles and philanthropic partnerships more effectively than traditional campaign channels.

II. Conservative Concerns Arising from Citizens United

A. Taxpayer Subsidization of Political Influence

The Supreme Court presumed that political spending is privately financed. This assumption is no longer correct.

Today:

• 501(c)(3)/(c)(4) organizations enjoy tax-advantaged status

• universities hold untaxed endowments

• unions deploy mandatory dues

• NGOs receive federal and state grants

• philanthropies receive charitable deductions

Taxpayers subsidize these actors even as they influence elections indirectly. Nothing in the First Amendment requires the public fisc to underwrite partisan operations.

B. Foreign Influence Vulnerabilities

The Founding generation feared foreign interference in elections more than domestic corruption. The modern influence architecture — particularly involving NGOs, academic exchanges, climate philanthropy, and diaspora networks — exploits Citizens United’s treatment of institutional spending as protected speech.

Traditional FEC and FARA enforcement frameworks are inadequate to address these channels.

C. Erosion of Republican Self-Government

Citizens United rests on a libertarian view of speech. Conservatism rests on a republican view: citizens must retain the practical capacity to govern.

If unelected institutions possess greater political influence than citizens, elections become symbolic rather than determinative. This represents a constitutional, not merely policy, vulnerability.

III. Mapping Institutional Power in the Post-CU System

Post-Citizens United, the most influential political actors are:

• large philanthropies and foundations

• NGOs and advocacy nonprofits

• labor unions

• universities and academic institutes

• multinational corporations

• donor-advised funds

• foreign-funded institutes

• ESG and DEI networks

• refugee/migration NGOs

• digital platforms

These actors share five properties that individuals do not:

1. Perpetuity (they do not die)

2. Scale (they pool capital)

3. Tax Advantage

4. Opacity

5. Foreign Connectivity

They constitute a political class the Constitution neither regulates nor anticipates.

IV. Anti-Corruption, Not Anti-Speech

Conservatives need not adopt progressive arguments about “leveling” or “economic equality.” The case for revisiting Citizens United is grounded in:

• sovereignty

• accountability

• anti-corruption

• constitutional republicanism

• subsidiarity

• electoral integrity

Corruption in the modern administrative state is systemic and institutional, not transactional or bilateral. The Court’s narrow quid-pro-quo definition is outdated.

V. Policy Options for Conservative Lawmakers

A repeal or rollback of Citizens United need not rely solely on constitutional amendment or judicial reversal. Congress and states can pursue multiple pathways:

Option 1: Tax Neutrality Reform

• Disallow tax-subsidized entities from political operations

• Limit charitable deductions to non-political functions

• Prohibit use of federal/state grants for election-adjacent work

Option 2: Transparency and Foreign Influence Controls

• Expand FARA to tax-exempt entities

• Require disclosure of foreign philanthropic recipients

• Mandate donor transparency for DAFs and (c)(4)s engaged in election work

Option 3: Sovereignty-Based Restrictions

• Treat foreign-adjacent institutional spending like foreign corporate donations (banned)

• Restrict university and foundation advocacy funded by foreign governments or sovereign wealth entities

Option 4: Restore Party and Citizen Primacy

• Strengthen political parties relative to NGO networks

• Incentivize small-dollar citizen donations

• Reinstate caps for institutions but not individuals

Option 5: Judicial Revisit Strategies

Conservatives could encourage the Court to revisit Citizens United under “changed facts” doctrine based on:

• new institutional dominance

• foreign influence vectors

• taxpayer subsidy contradictions

• failure of disclosure safeguards

VI. Conclusion

Citizens United is no longer a bulwark of free speech but a subsidy for institutional actors that operate outside constitutional accountability. Conservatism, properly understood, demands a political order in which citizens govern, elections matter, sovereignty is protected, and taxpayers do not underwrite partisan activism through tax-exempt vehicles.

Revisiting or constraining Citizens United is not capitulation to the Left. It is the restoration of the constitutional principles the Right claims to defend.