politicscampaignsethicslawdemocracy
Corporations should be barred from funding U.S. elections beyond strict, transparent limits.
Unlimited outside spending can skew representation, especially via undisclosed ‘dark money.’ The 2024 federal cycle saw a record ~$1.9B in dark money.
Weak disclosure obscures who is funding electioneering, limiting voter accountability.
Shareholder funds can underwrite politics they oppose; stronger limits and disclosure reduce legal, reputational, and governance risk.
Independent expenditures by corporations (and unions) are protected speech under the First Amendment.
Corporations still cannot give directly to federal candidates; bans and base limits remain in place.
Super PAC spending must not be coordinated with candidates and is reported, informing voters without restricting advocacy.
Debate focuses on whether corporate money distorts democracy or reflects protected advocacy. Reformers argue that unlimited and opaque spending skews representation and evades voter accountability; defenders counter that independent expenditures are protected speech, direct corporate donations remain illegal, and reporting rules provide transparency without silencing political participation.
After Citizens United (2010) permitted unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions, outside spending surged, including from nondisclosing groups. Federal law still bans direct corporate contributions to candidates, while disclosure and reporting frameworks (e.g., for super PACs) continue to evolve amid ongoing transparency and shareholder-governance debates.