Citizens United

Sen. Bernie Sanders urged Democratic leaders to ban super PAC involvement in primary elections, criticizing wealthy outside groups for having too much influence over nominations. In a letter, he specifically highlighted AIPAC's spending, alleging the group spent over $30 million in Michigan’s primary and plans further expenditures supporting Republican candidates generally. Sanders also criticized corporate super PACs across various industries, noting record spending in this election cycle.

Bernie Sanders demands Democratic leaders ban super PACs from primaries due to excessive outside spending by wealthy groups like AIPAC. He argued that these special interests spend millions influencing nominations but often support Republican candidates instead of Democrats. Sanders also called for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United.

Jordan Herrera, an attorney and Air Force veteran, won the Democratic nomination in Missouri’s 4th Congressional District, defeating democratic socialist Hartzell Gray. Gray, a tenant organizer and former radio host, raised significantly more funds but lost the primary, which became a test case for the party’s socialist left. The district remains GOP-leaning, with Herrera facing Republican Rep. Mark Alford in November.

American billionaires have contributed over $433 million to the 2026 midterms, with 79% of the $344.3 million from the top 50 families supporting Republicans and conservative groups. Major recipients include MAGA Inc. ($89 million) and individual donors like Elon Musk ($71 million) and Jeff Yass ($55 million).

Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse propose a bill to set foreign ownership thresholds for companies spending on campaigns. The bill targets a provision from Citizens United that permits foreign contributions.

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 30 decision removed spending limits on political parties coordinating with candidates, potentially increasing their influence in key midterm races. Experts suggest this shift strengthens party roles in campaigns but may not significantly alter total spending, as super PACs already provide unlimited funds.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision removed limits on political parties' coordinated spending with candidates, potentially enhancing their influence in midterm elections. The ruling, which followed a 6-3 vote, could affect Senate races in states like Maine, Ohio, and Texas, though experts question if it will significantly increase overall campaign spending.

Hawaii passed a law redefining corporations to exclude their power to spend money in elections, effective 2027, with Montana pursuing a similar ballot measure. The approach aims to counter the Citizens United ruling by redefining corporate rights at the state level, as federal efforts to overturn the decision have failed.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates in a case from Ohio, citing First Amendment rights. The decision allows parties to coordinate messaging with candidates, removing restrictions that had been in place since the 1970s.

Mark Sherman, a Supreme Court reporter for The Associated Press, reflects on his 20 years covering the court during a period of significant ideological shifts. He notes the court's movement to the right due to unexpected vacancies, political maneuvers, and the rise of Donald Trump, highlighting cases like Bush v. Gore and the impact of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in 2016.

Mark Sherman, a Supreme Court reporter for The Associated Press, reflects on his 20-year career covering the court's ideological shift to the right. He highlights events like Justice Antonin Scalia's death and the influence of Donald Trump as factors contributing to the court's conservative supermajority.

The Supreme Court eliminated limits on political party spending in federal elections, reversing a 50-year-old law. A Republican-led lawsuit, including Vice President JD Vance, challenged these limits, which were previously upheld in 2001. The decision aligns with the 2010 Citizens United ruling and shifts campaign finance rules, allowing parties to spend freely in coordination with candidates.

The Supreme Court eliminated limits on political party spending in coordination with federal candidates, overturning a 50-year-old law. The decision followed a Republican-led lawsuit involving Vice President JD Vance and was influenced by the 2010 Citizens United ruling. The Federal Election Commission later ceased defending the law after President Donald Trump's second term began.

The Supreme Court eliminated federal limits on political party spending in coordination with candidates, following a Republican-led lawsuit including JD Vance. The decision overturns a 50-year-old law, aligning with the 2010 Citizens United ruling, and was supported by the Federal Election Commission under President Donald Trump's administration.

The Supreme Court eliminated limits on coordinated political party spending in federal elections, overturning a 50-year-old law. The decision, driven by a Republican-led lawsuit including Vice President JD Vance, expands spending rights previously limited to prevent circumvention of individual contribution caps.

More candidates are using personal wealth to fund campaigns, with over 200 candidates contributing about $250 million this year, an eight-fold increase since 2022. Examples include Tom Steyer, who spent $213 million for governor, and Saikat Chakrabati, who contributed $9 million for Congress. The trend is linked to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie was defeated in Kentucky's primary after Trump's opposition, while progressive candidates won in Pennsylvania. The article reveals how mysterious super PACs, particularly those backed by pro-Israel donors and Republican donors, are pouring millions into elections while hiding their funding sources through complex shell organizations. Industries like crypto, AI, and gambling are strategically using opaque campaign finance structures to influence elections without public knowledge of their involvement.

The article discusses the potential end of the Citizens United era, a landmark Supreme Court case that allowed unlimited independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. It highlights a 2026 case challenging electoral corruption tied to campaign finance laws, suggesting a possible shift in judicial approach.