Bernie Sanders recently criticized Elon Musk He claimed to have poured millions of dollars into Donald Trump“‘s presidential campaign,” he said and requested United CitizensLandmark decision of the US Supreme Court to be overturned.
He said: “Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is allowed to pour zillions of dollars into Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Does this sound like democracy to you? “We must overturn Citizens United and move to public financing of elections.”

Noting that Democrats also have wealthy donors, Vivek Ramaswamy wrote: “It’s funny that they haven’t had much to say about Citizens United for the last 10 years while the likes of George Soros and Reid Hoffman have turned the Democratic Party into their own game. toy.”

According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) according to disclosures, Democrats have significantly outspent and outspent Republicans in the current cycle, both in terms of campaign finance and funds raised by and for political action committees. (Pac). These Pacs are affiliated with presidential candidates but are established and operated independently by law.
The latest available returns through Oct. 16 showed Democrats raising $1.05 billion and spending $883 million, leaving about $120 million on hand. By contrast, Republicans raised $565 million and spent all but $52.6 million.
But the inclusion of Pac money increased those numbers dramatically. While direct individual contributions to presidential candidates are capped at $3,300, no such restriction applies to Pacs. Pacs raised $13.5 billion through the end of the previous month in January 2023, according to the FEC.
The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision and other subsequent decisions have allowed corporations, special interest groups, and wealthy individuals (including Elon Musk through the Trump-aligned America Pac) to make unlimited contributions, giving them significant influence in elections and beyond. .
Democrats have significantly outspended and outspent Republicans in the current cycle, both in terms of campaign finance and funds raised by and for political action committees (Pacs), according to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These Pacs are affiliated with presidential candidates but are established and operated independently by law.
The latest available returns through Oct. 16 showed Democrats raising $1.05 billion and spending $883 million, leaving about $120 million on hand. By contrast, Republicans raised $565 million and spent all but $52.6 million.
But the inclusion of Pac money increased those numbers dramatically. While direct individual contributions to presidential candidates are capped at $3,300, no such restriction applies to Pacs. Pacs raised $13.5 billion through the end of the previous month in January 2023, according to the FEC.
The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision and other subsequent decisions have allowed corporations, special interest groups, and wealthy individuals (including Elon Musk through the Trump-aligned America Pac) to make unlimited contributions, giving them significant influence in elections and beyond. .
What is the difference between Citizens United and the Federal Election Commission?
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in 2010 that fundamentally reshaped the landscape of American campaign finance. The case arose when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, attempted to release a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as the 2008 primaries approached. However, under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act), companies and unions are prohibited from funding “electioneering communications” during a certain period before the election. Citizens United challenged this restriction, arguing that it violated its First Amendment rights to free speech.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in a 5-4 decision, effectively stating that corporate funding of independent political publications in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The decision was based on the idea that political spending is a form of protected speech, and that corporations, like individuals, have the right to engage in that speech.
The decision had profound consequences:
1. Increased Political Spending: Allowed corporations, unions, and special interest groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as the spending was “independent” of candidates’ campaigns.
2. The Rise of Super PACs: Following the decision, Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) emerged. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs They can raise and spend unlimited funds from corporations, unions, and individuals, but they cannot coordinate directly with candidates or their campaigns.
3. Effect Black money: The decision also contributed to the rise of “dark money” (political spending by nonprofits that do not disclose their donors).
Supporters argue that the decision supports free speech and allows more voices to participate in the democratic process, while critics argue that the decision undermines democratic equality by allowing wealthy corporations and individuals disproportionate influence over elections. The debate over Citizens United remains highly polarized and continues to shape debates about campaign finance reform in the US