Emory Undergraduate Journal of Law & Society

It goes without saying that the outcome of the 2024 presidential election is among the most consequential in recent memory. The issues at stake—climate change, healthcare reform, economic inequality, and global diplomacy—have deep implications for America’s future. Yet, behind the political platforms and fiery debates lies the powerful and often controversial influence of political action committees (PACs) and super PACs. These entities have become indispensable to modern political campaigns, enabling candidates to raise unprecedented amounts of money. However, their ascent to influence can be traced back to the landmark Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC).  

The 2010 ruling fundamentally reshaped the political landscape of the United States. In Citizens United, the Court held that corporations, unions, and other organizations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, provided that the expenditures remain independent of official candidate campaigns. The decision effectively equated financial contributions with free speech under the First Amendment. The Court effectively paved the way for the creation of super PACs—organizations that can collect and utilize unlimited funds from individuals, corporations, and unions to support or oppose political candidates, unlike traditional PACs, which are subject to strict contribution limits. 

In the 2024 election, both major parties relied heavily on PACs and super PACs to solicit television ads, coordinate digital outreach, and organize grassroots campaigns. Corporations and wealthy donors poured billions into these organizations, ensuring their preferred candidates had the resources to dominate airwaves and social media. Collectively, PACs contributed over $1.1B to the presidential races [1]. While some argue that this influx of money amplifies free speech by enabling diverse voices to be heard, it is the nature of the law that provides disproportionate influence to wealthy individuals and corporations. This dynamic raises questions about equity in the democratic process. Can the voice of the average voter genuinely compete with the financial clout of billion-dollar corporations? The answer is no. The implications of Citizens United extend well beyond campaign financing. By enabling corporations to wield immense financial power in elections, the ruling has given them significant policymaking leverage. Politicians find themselves beholden to the interests of their largest donors, prioritizing corporate agendas over the needs of ordinary citizens.

This imbalance was overwhelmingly evident in the 2024 election. For example, one of President Trump’s policy proposals during his campaign was to reverse the Biden-Harris administration’s light-duty vehicle emissions standards. Passed in March of this year, these standards are projected to prevent more than 7 billion tons of carbon emissions and provide nearly $100 billion in annual net benefits to society, including $13 billion (about $40 per person in the US) in annual public health benefits from improved air quality and $62 billion (about $190 per person in the US) in reduced annual fuel, maintenance, and repair costs for drivers. The finalized standards aim to achieve significant pollution reductions while accelerating the adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies [2]. Under the Trump administration, the individual tasked with revising this policy is Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, and a major donor to Trump’s presidential campaign through his PAC, contributing upwards of $239 million [3]. Musk’s dual roles—head of the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency and CEO of a leading automotive corporation—raise questions about potential conflicts of interest. While it remains unclear what specific changes Musk might implement, there are evident tensions between his obligation to Tesla shareholders and the imperative to uphold pollution health standards that benefit both the public and the environment.

Prioritization of financial benefactors undermines the American democracy, established with the intent to amplify the voices of all citizens—not just those with deep pockets. By extending human rights through Citizens United to PACs that are neither “individuals” nor “people,” the decision allows corporations to exert political power over the livelihoods of actual citizens. The conflation of corporate interests with the demands of everyday American citizens is problematic. Corporations exist to serve their shareholders, not the broader public. Allowing such entities to shape the political landscape blurs the line between corporate priorities and public welfare—two realms that should remain distinct. In essence, the ruling shifts the focus of governance away from the collective needs of the populace and toward the narrow interests of the wealthy few, challenging the very foundations of democracy.

In the aftermath of the 2024 election, the debate over the influence of money in politics has reignited. Many Americans are calling for reforms to reduce the leverage of action committees and business interests in elections. For example, one bill proposed to Congress is the DISCLOSE Act, which would require political groups to disclose campaign expenditures as well as limit campaign spending by foreign nationals [4]. While the outcome of these efforts remains uncertain, the growing influence of PACs and super PACs has undeniably changed the landscape of American democracy, and bills like the DISCLOSE Act take a step towards building transparency with citizens. As voters, it is crucial to remain informed, engaged, and vigilant to ensure that the democratic process remains fair and representative of all voices—not just the wealthiest among us.

References

[1] Kassimar, B. (2024, October 24). Outside Spending Eclipses $1 Billion in the Presidential Race, Setting a New Record. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/outside-spending-1-billion-presidential-race-record-rcna176472.

[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024, March 20). Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes Strongest-Ever Pollution Standard for Cars. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strongest-ever-pollution-standards-cars-position.

[3] Ingram, J. (2024, December 6). Elon Musk Spends $277 Million to Back Trump and Republican Candidates. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-277-million-trump-republican-candidates-donations/.

[4] S.512 – 118th Congress (2023-2024): DISCLOSE Act of 2023. (2023, February 16). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/512