The Gradual Erosion of Democracy After Citizens United

Citizens United dramatically increased the role of money– especially unlimited, often opaque money, in American politics. It has intensified several conditions that political scientists associate with democratic backsliding.

Citizens United

In Citizens United v. FEC (2010) the Supreme Court held that corporations, unions, and associations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on independent political advocacy. As a result super PACs have become dominant. They are allowed to raise unlimited funds from wealthy individuals, corporations, and nonprofits. Called dark money, nonprofits (501(c)(4)s) can spend heavily on elections without disclosing donors. Outside spending in federal elections increased from roughly $143 million in 2008 to over $1.4 billion in 2020. As a result of Citizens United, a tiny fraction of donors now account for a large share of political spending. Candidates increasingly rely on outside money rather than party organizations. These are well‑documented changes in the structure of American political power.

Corporations, while legal entities, are not citizens. They are not human beings. Giving them citizen attributes increases the power of the individuals who own them.

Political scientists see Citizens United as one factor that amplifies elite influence over policy and messaging. It weakens accountability because donors can remain hidden. At the same time, it increases polarization, as outside groups often reward extreme rhetoric, which erodes trust, because voters perceive the system as unduly influenced by money. These trends can make democratic institutions more vulnerable to authoritarian behavior.

Democratic Erosion

Today, the U.S. shows warning signs that scholars of democratic erosion track. There are increasing claims that political opponents are “enemies of the nation.” There have been Trump led attempts to delegitimize elections. Growing executive power is evident under President Trump. As a result of vitriolic speech, there is an increase in political violence and threats, and extreme polarization of the population. Media companies reinforce disinformation and increase the influence of wealthy donors and corporations.

However, the U.S. also retains strong features that offset the erosion. There are still competitive elections, although there are concerns about federal interference in the November 2026 midterm elections. There are independent courts, although some critics argue that the Supreme Court has been compromised. Free press still exists despite efforts by the federal government to control the message. There are still many civil society organizations that represent various social economic and environmental causes openly stating their beliefs. State rights still exist. However, there are efforts, such as the SAVE Act, that attempt to encroach on these rights. And while there are Constitutional checks and balances, the current administration has worked to redefine them.

Most scholars describe the U.S. as experiencing democratic backsliding. Yet, the rhetoric we are hearing, such as calling political opponents “enemies,” is historically associated with authoritarian movements. This certainly deserves serious attention. When a political leader labels a domestic political party as an “enemy,” it signals a dehumanization of opponents and delegitimization of democratic competition. This labeling can lead to justification for extraordinary measures, such as declaring a national emergency during an election. It has already led to permission for supporters to treat politics as warfare. Donald Trump backed motivated supporters on their January 6, 2020, march on the Capitol. This rhetoric is not new in world history, and it is often a precursor to authoritarian consolidation. It is a red flag in democratic theory.

The issue is the interaction between unlimited money, polarization, disinformation, institutional weakness, leader-centric politics, and rhetoric that frames opponents as existential threats. That combination is historically dangerous.

Daniel Webster

“It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the danger of good intentions. There are men, in all ages…who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern.” These are words that the People need to remember. Today’s political landscape is dominated by big money, whether it is through lobbying efforts or through the various organizations that are now allowed, as a result of by Citizens United, for all practical purposes, to buy elections. The People have been sold out. Who sold us out? We did!! When people/citizens fail to cast ballots and get involved in political debate, they forfeit their freedoms to those who are willing to be involved. Today, in the United States, those most involved in politics are the moneyed interests. More than likely, these organizations and individuals do not have the People’s best interests in mind!

Did the Supreme Court get it right? I don’t think so. They have placed inordinate value on the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause. However, in the Constitution, Freedom of Speech is only granted to the People. This does not include non-human legal entities! These groups, if allowed to continue to pour millions of dollars into political debates, will have an impact beyond anything dreamed of by the Founding Fathers. In addition, the reality is that they not only have a financial impact, but allow people associated with the organization to in essence have more than 1 vote!! Wealthy business owners not only cast their “human” vote but also have tremendous influence through their companies’ ability to propagandize their interests.

Conclusion

It is We the People who need to take control of our creation. End Citizens United!! Control funding for political purposes!! American citizens need to support efforts to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United. Groups such as Move to Amend are working to gain support in both the House and the Senate. Make your voice heard by supporting a group organized to stop the influence of big money in politics. Support Move to Amend, Democracy Unlimited, We the People, or other grassroots organizations that are working to remove big money from politics. Vote for representatives who advocate for the removal of big money from politics!

Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism: Untangling Economic Systems from Political Theories

After watching the Sunday morning opinion pieces, I was concerned with the confusion that some pundits seemed to embrace. Some Republicans seem to be mixing up political structures with social theories. Views on the Social Democrats of America were promoted as political views of the Democratic party. The use of the word communism was pervasive in some of the discussion, implying that socialist leaning Democrats, if voted into power, would turn our country into a communist state. I assume this is a political strategy rather than real fact-based opinions.

Public debates often treat communism, socialism, and capitalism as if they were political identities. They are used as labels to praise, fear, or weaponize. But these terms describe economic systems, not political ones. They tell us how a society organizes production, ownership, and distribution. They do not tell us how a society governs, how leaders are chosen, or what rights citizens possess.

This distinction matters. When we blur economics with politics, we misdiagnose both history and current events. We also lose the ability to evaluate systems on their actual merits rather than on caricatures. Economic systems answer one set of questions:

Who owns productive property?
How are resources allocated?
What motivates production?

Political theories answer another set.

Who holds power?
How is authority justified?
What rights and freedoms exist?

These are separate dimensions. They interact, but they are not interchangeable.

Economic Systems

Capitalism rests on private ownership, market competition, and profit as the organizing principles. Individuals and firms decide what to produce, and prices emerge from supply and demand. Capitalism does not dictate political structure. Historically, it has coexisted with constitutional democracies, monarchies, and authoritarian regimes

Socialism is an economic system built around collective ownership of major industries with intentional redistribution in order to reduce inequality. It does not require the elimination of all private property; it simply shifts control of essential sectors to the public, workers, or cooperatives.

Socialism can be paired with many political theories. Democratic socialism marries socialist economics with democratic governance (Democratic Socialist of America). Or social democracy which keeps capitalist markets but overlays them with strong welfare institutions (left leaning members of the Democratic Party).

Communism, as articulated by Marx, is a hypothetical state which is classless, stateless, and fully communal. There is no private property and there are no markets. Production is organized around human need rather than profit. No country has ever reached this theoretical destination. What we call “communist states” were political regimes attempting to manage centrally planned economies. They adopted one‑party rule, state ownership of all major industries, centralized planning, and limited political freedoms. These political characteristics came from Marxist‑Leninist governance, not from communism as an economic ideal.

Why do These Terms Get Confused?

Communist governments implemented socialist policies. Socialist parties borrowed Marxist language. The result: overlapping vocabulary that obscures underlying differences. In American discourse, “socialist” is often used as shorthand for “expanded government services,” even when the underlying economy remains capitalist. Most modern nations operate mixed economies. Capitalist markets with varying degrees of social welfare and regulation are common ranging from Nordic systems to British and American systems. This makes clean categorization difficult.

A Clean Separation

The types of economic systems are:

Communism: total collective ownership, abolition of markets. (Everyone shares 2 cows)

Socialism: collective ownership of key sectors, redistribution. (An individual or company has 1 cow while everyone else shares 1 cow)

Capitalism: private ownership, markets, profit incentives. (An individual or company has 2 cows, sells 1 and buys a bull)

Types of political theories are:

Democracy– Switzerland, South Korea

Republicanism – United States, Germany

Monarchy—United Kingdom (liberal constitutional) to Saudi Arabia (absolute control)

Marxism‑Leninism—Cuba, China, Vietnam

Liberalism— None

Social democracy—Nordic countries

These political theories can be paired with any economic system. The combinations shape the lived experience of citizens far more than the economic label alone.

Conclusion

Think of economics as the engine of a society and politics as the steering system. You can run a capitalist engine under democratic steering, or a socialist engine under authoritarian steering. The engine determines how resources move. The steering determines who decides where society goes. America is a capitalist economy operating within a democratic republic that incorporates social programs. America is a democratic, capitalist, republic!

Is a Compromise Between Capitalism and Socialism Possible in a Democratic Republic?

Few debates have proven as persistent — or as misunderstood — as the tension between capitalism and socialism. In the United States and other democratic republics, these ideas are often framed as mutually exclusive, locked in a zero‑sum ideological struggle. Yet the most stable, prosperous, and broadly free societies have not chosen one or the other. They have blended both. These blended models exist in the Scandinavian countries.

The real story of democratic success is not ideological purity. It is compromise. It is a deliberate balancing of market dynamism with social protection, individual liberty with collective responsibility, and private enterprise with public goods. Income is generated by capitalism which is then used to support our communities. Roads, fire departments, police departments, and social support systems wouldn’t exist without socialism.

Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism Both Fall Short of Their Promise

Pure capitalism maximizes individual freedom and market efficiency, but it also tends to produce extreme wealth concentration, cycles of boom and bust, underinvestment in public products, and vulnerability for people who fall outside market success. Left entirely to markets, essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure can become inaccessible or unstable.

Pure socialism, on the other hand, aims for equality and universal provision, but historically it struggles with weak incentives for innovation, bureaucratic inefficiency, political centralization, and reduced consumer choice. When the state owns or directs most economic activity, democratically slow processes can erode needed legislation.

Both systems contain strengths and risks. A democratic republic thrives by taking the strengths of each while mitigating the weaknesses of both. A democratic republic is uniquely suited to blend capitalism and socialism because it distributes power across elected institutions, protects individual rights, allows citizens to influence the balance through elections, and encourages experimentation at local, state, and federal levels. This structure prevents either system from becoming absolute. Markets remain free enough to innovate; government remains empowered enough to ensure fairness and stability.

The Practical Value of the Mixed Model

Capitalism drives technological progress, entrepreneurship, and competition. Social programs, such as Social Security, public education, and safety regulations, provide stability that markets alone cannot. This combination allows societies to innovate without leaving large portions of society behind.

Democratic republics protect private property, free enterprise, freedom of speech, and political pluralism. They can also ensure basic healthcare access, retirement security, disaster relief, and consumer protections. Citizens enjoy freedoms to pursue opportunity but also security against catastrophic loss.

Market Efficiency with Moral Boundaries

Markets are powerful; they optimize profit, not justice. Democratic institutions can and have set boundaries. For example, banning child labor, regulating pollution, preventing monopolies, and ensuring safe food and medicine are desirable societal goals. These interventions are not anti‑capitalist; they are pro‑civilization.

Compromise

Across the 20th and 21st centuries, the most successful democratic republics — the U.S., Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the Nordic countries — have all adopted mixed systems. To one extent or another they all have strong private sectors, robust social safety nets, regulated markets, and democratic accountability.

Their economic models differ, but the underlying principle is the same. Markets generate wealth. Democratic institutions distribute opportunities. This blend has produced higher life expectancy, stronger middle classes, more stable economies, and greater political legitimacy. The compromise between capitalism and socialism is not a weakness. It is a competitive advantage.

Then Why Does the Debate Persist and Why Does It Matter?

Political rhetoric often paints capitalism and socialism as opposites. But in practice, democratic societies operate on a continuum. The real debate is not “capitalism vs. socialism.” It is, “How much market freedom is optimal?” How much social protection is necessary? And where should democratic institutions intervene? These questions have evolved with technology, demographics, and global competition. A flexible mixed system allows democratic republics to adjust without tearing themselves apart.

Compromise Is the Engine of Democratic Strength

A democratic republic is not designed to enforce ideological purity. It is designed to negotiate competing interests, balance liberty and equality, adapt to changing conditions, and prevent extremes from capturing the whole system. The compromise between capitalism and socialism is not a reluctant middle ground. It is the foundation of democratic resilience. It ensures that markets remain vibrant, citizens remain protected, institutions remain legitimate, and society remains cohesive. The blend allows democracies to be free, fair, and functional. But finding the right mix continues to be a challenge.

We The People

I just finished reading In the Hands of the People: Thomas Jefferson on Equality, Faith, Freedom, Compromise, and the Art of Citizenship for the second time. Our small book club had decided to discuss it at our last meeting. While most of you probably do not need to hear the following, I am compelled to speak out to those who say, “It’s politics and I don’t want to get involved.” Or “I don’t want to have my life interrupted by all that bad news, so don’t talk about it.” Our Constitution starts with the familiar words, “We the People.” Our founding fathers’ vision was revolutionary. The government would be in the hands of the people, not kings or other individuals. They knew they were taking a chance. People were accustomed to having government make decisions for them, not having the option to make their own choices.

These same founding fathers, while holding doubts about the long-term viability of their creation, believed that a well-educated and informed people would make good choices in this republican system of representative democracy. Public education was supported by Washington, Jefferson, Adams and many others. Educated people who had access to information, whether biased or not, could and would make good decisions. With these dreams in mind, subsequent generations of Americans improved education and created a Fourth estate to provide good information even when it showed obvious bias. We the People were controlling our own destiny.

However, in recent years, complacency has become common. Many of the People have failed to keep fully informed, basing their judgment on biased or limited information. Our education system has reduced the amount of teaching in civics, history, and social sciences. There have been successful efforts to restrict information that does not conform to standards established by power groups. Too many citizens have failed to realize that the government that they are criticizing is a criticism of self. If you are not informed and engaged, if you fail to take part in your government, you have no justification for complaining.

Get informed. Know your sources of information. Research “hot topic” issues. Engage in civil discussions with your friends and acquaintances. Take time to know what your elected representatives believe. Take part in local, state, and federal elections. Don’t tell me “I don’t want to hear about it!”