Quick summary
• Rep. Pramila Jayapal introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, aiming to end corporate personhood, regulate political spending, and require full disclosure of campaign contributions.
• Elon Musk spent over $270 million backing Donald Trump’s campaign, securing an unelected role overseeing federal spending while his wealth surged by $170 billion.
• The Citizens United ruling allowed billionaires like Musk to dominate elections, with unlimited money influencing outcomes and drowning out ordinary voters.
• Musk’s influence over the government has led to new federal contracts for his companies while he slashes public spending through his role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
• Jayapal’s amendment, cosponsored by 28 progressive lawmakers, seeks to eliminate dark money in politics and restore democratic accountability.
• The amendment faces opposition from Republicans and corporate-backed politicians, making passage difficult despite growing public frustration over billionaire control of elections.
• If Citizens United remains in place, billionaires will continue to buy elections and dictate government policies, further eroding public trust in democracy.
The role of money in American politics has never been more apparent than in the aftermath of the most expensive election in U.S. history, one where Elon Musk spent over $270 million backing Donald Trump—and was rewarded with unprecedented power in the federal government. Now, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) is leading the charge to dismantle the system that enabled Musk’s rise by introducing a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The amendment, known as the “We the People Amendment,” would eliminate corporate personhood, allow regulation of political spending, and require full disclosure of campaign contributions. It is cosponsored by 28 progressive lawmakers, including Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pennsylvania) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan), and has been hailed as a necessary step to restore democracy in the face of billionaire influence.
“Corporations are not people and money is not speech,” Jayapal said when introducing the legislation. “In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country—this year, with a billionaire paying millions to buy a seat as Shadow President.”
Musk, the world’s richest man, made back his election spending nearly 600 times over as his wealth surged by $170 billion since Election Day—a direct result of government contracts, deregulation, and Trump’s appointment of Musk as head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Critics argue that Musk’s influence is the clearest example of how Citizens United has eroded democratic governance, allowing billionaires to buy elections and dictate policy.
The 2010 Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for corporate and billionaire spending in politics, ruling that money in politics is protected as free speech. The ruling enabled unlimited contributions to Super PACs, which now dominate federal elections, with the candidate who spends more almost always winning.
This system allowed Musk to spend $270 million backing Trump’s 2024 campaign, securing enormous influence over the administration and his appointment to an unelected role overseeing federal spending. His ability to buy power is not unique—other billionaires, particularly in Big Tech and Wall Street, funneled enormous sums into Trump’s campaign, ensuring that their economic interests would take priority over public welfare.
Federal election filings show that Musk was among the biggest donors in the 2024 election cycle, with his contributions fueling Trump’s reelection bid and securing massive returns in the form of government contracts and deregulation that benefit his businesses.
Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance expert, explained Musk’s unprecedented influence in a piece for Rolling Stone:
“Musk’s astonishing influence over Trump and the Republican Party is not merely a function of his wealth, his celebrity, or his ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). It is attributable to his pouring of at least $277 million into super PACs last year, which purchased enormous influence.”
The consequences of Citizens United have never been clearer. Musk’s ability to buy elections has allowed him to dismantle public institutions, control government spending, and use federal agencies to enrich himself—all without ever being elected.
Since Trump’s return to office, Musk has used his position at DOGE to slash government programs while securing lucrative new federal contracts for his businesses. His role, which has no clear legal foundation, has been described by critics as a corporate takeover of the U.S. government.
His rapid accumulation of wealth following Trump’s victory has led many to conclude that his political donations were an investment rather than an act of political conviction. The pattern is clear: billionaires fund campaigns, dictate policies, and extract enormous financial returns—leaving ordinary Americans shut out of the democratic process.
Jayapal’s amendment seeks to reverse the damage caused by Citizens United by ending corporate personhood and limiting the influence of money in elections.
If passed, the amendment would:
• Eliminate corporate personhood, ensuring that only human beings—not businesses—have constitutional rights.
• Declare that money is not speech, allowing lawmakers to set limits on political spending.
• Require full public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures, eliminating dark money influence in elections.
Cole Bennett, co-director of the advocacy group Move to Amend, emphasized the urgency of passing the amendment:
“The exponential growth of corporate power and corrupting political influence from huge sums of money flooding elections can only be solved with a systemic solution that is equivalent in scale to these systemic problems—the We the People Amendment, which will end all corporate constitutional rights and money as free speech.”
Jayapal’s amendment faces an uphill battle in Congress, as no Republican lawmakers have backed the proposal. The GOP, which relies heavily on billionaire funding, has consistently opposed campaign finance reform and is expected to block any effort to limit corporate political influence.
Even among Democrats, the amendment may face resistance, as many establishment politicians continue to benefit from Super PAC donations. The financial structure of U.S. elections—where candidates must raise millions to compete—makes it difficult to gain bipartisan support for measures that would restrict donor influence.
Adding to the challenge is the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment, which requires:
• A two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.
• Ratification by 38 states.
Despite these obstacles, progressives argue that the fight for campaign finance reform is essential to protecting democracy. The public, increasingly aware of the corrupting influence of billionaire money in politics, may pressure lawmakers to take action—especially as figures like Musk continue to consolidate power.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s “We the People Amendment” directly challenges the system that allowed Elon Musk to rise from campaign megadonor to an unelected official controlling federal policy. Her proposal would dismantle the influence of corporate money in politics and return power to ordinary Americans.
The stakes are high. If Citizens United remains in place, billionaires will continue to buy elections, dictate government policies, and erode public trust in democracy.
Musk’s meteoric rise from campaign financier to policy dictator is a warning sign—a demonstration of what happens when money overrides the will of voters. As long as billionaires can spend their way into power, democracy remains a system rigged in favor of the ultra-wealthy.
The question remains: Will Congress act to curb the power of the ultra-rich, or will elections continue to be determined by those with the deepest pockets?
COMMENTS