No actions by any government body, individual or corporation has done more damage to Madison’s Republic than two of the Supreme Court’s most anti-democratic decisions. Both were aimed at overturning the rule of law and undermining representative republicanism. They represent an intention by the Court to significantly dismantle the Founder’s vision for America and replace it with an eighteenth-century European model of monarchy and oligarchy. The sad joke is that the majority justices constantly refer to themselves as originalists who are faithful to the founding vision of the country.
The first is the 2010 Citizen United decision. In that 5 to 4 ruling SCOTUS defined itself as the enemy of the ordinary citizen and the reliable ally of the oligarchs. The United States was instantly converted from a Representative Republic to an oligarchy. The average citizen was rendered irrelevant as a political force, and the purchase of the government by wealthy interests was assured.
So addicted to major donor funding have both political parties become that neither has seriously attempted to overturn Citizen’s United, even when they had the necessary majorities to do so. Sure, the Democrats make pale and pathetic references to the evil of big money in politics, but they take the money and turn a blind eye to the damage it is doing to the average American’s sense of citizenship. Citizens United guaranteed that the party of the working class would perish in a tsunami of campaign contributions and PACs. And, as the results of the 2024 election clearly demonstrate, it has.
The second is the decision on Presidential immunity which put to lie the uniquely American vision that no man is above the law. The court decision allows the President to openly violate any law, including committing murder, as long as there is an argument to be made that the action was taken in pursuance of his duties as president. With control of the Department of Justice in hand, it is virtually certain that such an exemption would be forthcoming.
In short, the Supreme Court reinstated the divine right of kings and applied it to a single individual, the sitting president. The indemnification was so broadly written that a president who commits a crime in office is shielded from accountability once he leaves office. This decision not only puts the president above the law, but it also ratifies the contention of Richard Nixon when he stated that the president is not only above the law, he is the law.
The Instant Creation of Masses of Second Class Citizens
For those of you who have forgotten, or never cared to know, the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission marked a seismic shift in American political dynamics. By ruling that corporations and other organizations could spend unlimited funds on independent political expenditures, the decision effectively granted disproportionate influence to the wealthy, while diluting the power of the average citizen. Citizens United reshaped the landscape of political influence in the United States, favoring elite interests at the expense of broader democratic representation.
The Decision and Its Legal Rationale: The Citizens United case centered on whether the First Amendment prohibited restrictions on corporate-funded political broadcasts. The Court overturned precedent and ruled that corporations, unions, and other entities possess a First Amendment right to engage in political speech through financial expenditures. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, argued that limiting independent expenditures by corporations infringed on their free speech rights. The decision essentially made corporations people – a contention made famous by Senator Romney – and opened the door to corporations set up specifically for the purpose of channeling massive amounts of money to support the political agendas of the wealthy and politically powerful.
The decision erroneously equated spending for political advocacy with free speech and granted artificial entities the same expressive rights as individuals. But, it was worse than that. The Supreme Court decided that there were degrees of citizenship which depended on the balances of one’s bank account. The wealthy had more rights than the average citizen because they could spend parts of their vast fortunes to either promote or defeat candidates, depending on whether they would make their life easier or more complicated. The decision opened the floodgates for unprecedented amounts of money to flow into political campaigns, largely through Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) and other opaque mechanisms.
A particularly insidious result of the decision was that wealthy interests could hide behind a corporate shield. They could fund efforts without having their names disclosed. Unlike human citizens, these uber-citizens could anonymously promote whatever anti-democratic policy they found beneficial to their interests and ordinary citizens would be blocked from knowing who was writing the checks.
How Citizens United Advanced the Interests of the Wealthy and Politically Powerful
Unlimited Expenditures by Corporations and the Wealthy: Post-Citizens United, wealthy individuals and corporations have gained unparalleled avenues to shape elections and policy outcomes. Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds as long as they do not directly coordinate with candidates, have become the preferred tools of billionaires and large organizations. This dynamic enables a small cohort of wealthy donors to amplify their voices far beyond those of average citizens. Studies reveal that the top 0.1% of donors account for a significant share of total campaign contributions, making their priorities disproportionately influential.
The Rise of Dark Money: The decision also fueled the proliferation of dark money—political spending by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. This lack of transparency allows wealthy donors to exert influence anonymously, further tilting the political playing field. Groups funded by wealthy individuals and corporations have leveraged dark money to shape public opinion, lobby policymakers, and sway elections without accountability.
Policy Consequences Favoring Elites: The influx of money from the wealthy has translated into policies that disproportionately serve elite interests. The preferences of affluent Americans and powerful interest groups are more likely to be reflected in policy decisions than those of the general public. Issues like tax policy, financial regulation, and healthcare reform often align with the priorities of major donors rather than the majority of voters.
How Citizens United Eroded the Political Power of the Average Citizen
Marginalization of Small Donors: While grassroots fundraising remains a viable strategy for some candidates, the overwhelming financial power of Super PACs and corporate-funded campaigns often drowns out the voices of small donors. Candidates reliant on small contributions struggle to compete with those backed by billionaires or well-funded organizations.
Disillusionment with the Democratic Process: The growing perception that elections are bought by the wealthy undermines public trust in democracy. Many Americans believe the political system primarily serves the interests of the rich and powerful, leading to voter apathy and disengagement. When citizens feel their votes carry less weight than dollars, participation in the democratic process wanes.
Barriers to Reform: Efforts to counteract the effects of Citizens United face significant challenges. Constitutional amendments to overturn the decision require broad political consensus, which is difficult to achieve in a polarized environment. Legislative reforms, such as stricter disclosure requirements for political spending, encounter resistance from those who benefit from the status quo.
The Negative Impact of Presidential Immunity on the Rule of Law
The recent decision by the Supreme Court affirming expansive presidential immunity marks a significant inflection point in the interpretation of executive power and its relationship to the rule of law. By insulating the President from certain legal liabilities, this ruling introduces serious concerns about accountability, balance of power, and public trust in democratic institutions. While some argue that such immunity is necessary to preserve the executive branch’s independence and efficiency, its broader implications risk undermining the foundational principle that no one, not even the President, is above the law.
Erosion of Accountability: The cornerstone of the rule of law is accountability — the principle that all individuals, regardless of position, must adhere to legal standards. Presidential immunity creates an exception to this rule, allowing the nation’s highest executive to evade direct legal consequences for actions that might otherwise constitute violations of the law. By shielding the President from prosecution or civil suits, the Court’s decision establishes a precedent that could encourage misconduct, corruption, or abuse of power.
Unchecked authority has historically led to governance failures, as leaders feel emboldened to prioritize personal or political agendas over public interest. Immunity reduces the legal recourse available to those harmed by presidential actions, including citizens, organizations, and even other branches of government. Without robust mechanisms to ensure accountability, the balance of power tilts dangerously in favor of the executive.
Threat to the Separation of Powers: The principle of separation of powers is fundamental to the United States Constitution, designed to prevent any single branch of government from dominating the others. Judicial oversight is a critical component of this equilibrium, ensuring that the executive branch operates within the bounds of the law. By granting immunity, the Court effectively diminishes its own ability — and that of other legal institutions — to serve as a check on presidential overreach.
Moreover, the ruling could embolden future administrations to exploit this precedent, testing the limits of executive authority without fear of immediate legal consequences. This erosion of checks and balances jeopardizes the system of governance that relies on mutual accountability and the interdependence of branches.
Impact on Public Trust: Public trust in the judiciary and government is an essential pillar of democratic governance. When citizens perceive that political leaders are shielded from legal accountability, it fosters a sense of inequality before the law. This perception can deepen political cynicism, discourage civic engagement, and erode faith in democratic institutions.
Furthermore, the ruling risks setting a dangerous standard that could reverberate internationally. The United States has long positioned itself as a global leader in the promotion of democratic values and the rule of law. A perceived double standard — where the President operates above legal constraints — weakens the country’s moral authority and diminishes its ability to advocate for justice and accountability abroad.
Encouraging Authoritarian Tendencies: The insulation of a single office from legal scrutiny has historically been associated with authoritarian regimes, where leaders wield unchecked power. While the United States maintains democratic safeguards, the Court’s decision risks normalizing the concentration of power in the executive. Over time, this could erode democratic norms, making it more difficult to resist future attempts to centralize authority or bypass institutional checks.
Welcome to the Wasteland – We Now Have a King. and You Are All His Subjects
The Citizens United decision dramatically shifted political power toward the wealthy, undermining the principle of equal representation in a democracy and equal treatment under the law. By enabling unlimited financial influence in elections, the ruling has marginalized the average citizen and fostered a political system more responsive to elite interests. Reversing these consequences will require bold reforms to reduce the dominance of money in politics and restore balance to the democratic process. Without such efforts, the promise of government “of the people, by the people, for the people” risks becoming an ideal rather than a reality.
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold presidential immunity has far-reaching implications that threaten the integrity of the rule of law. By shielding the President from certain legal consequences, the ruling undermines accountability, disrupts the balance of power, and weakens public trust in democratic institutions. While the rationale of preserving executive independence may have merit, the long-term risks far outweigh the benefits. Upholding the principle that no one is above the law is essential for safeguarding democracy and ensuring that the United States remains a beacon of justice and accountability.
The End of an Experiment in Self-Governance
These two decisions by the Supreme Court are part of a pattern of decisions that are designed to dismantle Madison’s Republic and replace it with a modernized version of eighteenth-century monarchy – the very model which was the reason for the Revolutionary War in the 1770s. They assume that Americans have been so completely domesticated tha they will accept the role of subjects in lieu of being citizens. If they are correct, Americans will live as prey for raptor capitalism as the wealthy get even wealthier and the average American lives paycheck-to-paycheck with any future but the grave. If they are not so domesticated, a little revolution is certain to be on the horizon
© Earl Smith.