Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

There are less than 48 hours left in this Mid-Year Campaign and our independent journalism needs your help today.
If you value our work, please support Common Dreams. This is our hour of need.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

"Super PACs weren’t created by Congress, or the U.S. Supreme Court—they were created by a lower court decision, based on faulty assumptions, that has never been reviewed or revisited," said Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech For People. (Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

In Step Toward Ending Dark-Money Elections, Court to Review Case That Created Super PACs

"We need to put 'We the People' back in charge, and that starts by closing the gaping super PAC loophole that has allowed dark money to overwhelm our elections."

Jake Johnson

In what could be a pivotal ruling, a district court decision on Thursday has set the stage for a review of the case that spawned the recent era of lavish and secretive spending by big-money super PACs in local and national campaigns.

In response, proponents of campaign finance reform expressed confidence that they are one step closer to getting a major source of corporate dark money out of U.S. elections.

"For nearly a decade, the SpeechNow ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has allowed big money donors to evade federal campaign contribution limits and corrupt even further our political process."
—John Bonifaz, Free Speech for People

"Super PACs weren't created by Congress, or the U.S. Supreme Court," Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People, said in a statement. "They were created by a lower court decision, based on faulty assumptions, that has never been reviewed or revisited."

In the 2010 case SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit applied the Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision to rule that limits on the amount individuals could contribute to "independent expenditure-only" groups violated the First Amendment.

The court's ruling, according to critics, unleashed a flood of corporate money into the U.S. political system that further corrupted the democratic process and gave big business even more power over election results.

"We need to put 'We the People' back in charge, and that starts by closing the gaping super PAC loophole that has allowed dark money to overwhelm our elections," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a plaintiff in Lieu v. FEC, which seeks to overturn the SpeechNow decision. The lawsuit was initially filed by Free Speech for People in 2016 on behalf of Merkley, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), and the late Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

In Thursday's decision, the federal district court said its hands are tied by SpeechNow until the 2010 ruling is overturned. According to Free Speech for People, the case is now set to be reviewed for the first time by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"For nearly a decade, the SpeechNow ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has allowed big money donors to evade federal campaign contribution limits and corrupt even further our political process," said John Bonifaz, co-Founder and president of Free Speech For People. "The real-world experience of this ruling and the threat that super PACs pose to our democracy must now be reviewed by the D.C. Circuit. We look forward to advancing this case."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Just a few days left in our crucial Mid-Year Campaign and we might not make it without your help.
Who funds our independent journalism? Readers like you who believe in our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. No corporate advertisers. No billionaire founder. Our non-partisan, nonprofit media model has only one source of revenue: The people who read and value this work and our mission. That's it.
And the model is simple: If everyone just gives whatever amount they can afford and think is reasonable—$3, $9, $29, or more—we can continue. If not enough do, we go dark.

All the small gifts add up to something otherwise impossible. Please join us today. Donate to Common Dreams. This is crunch time. We need you now.

Naomi Klein: The US Is in the Midst of a 'Shock-and-Awe Judicial Coup'

"The rolling judicial coup coming from this court is by no means over," warned the author of "The Shock Doctrine."

Jake Johnson ·


Markey, Bowman Join Climate Coalition in Urging SCOTUS Expansion

"We cannot sit idly by," said Markey, "as extremists on the Supreme Court eviscerate the authorities that the government has had for decades to combat climate change and reduce pollution."

Brett Wilkins ·


Ocasio-Cortez Says US 'Witnessing a Judicial Coup in Process'

"It is our duty to check the Court's gross overreach of power in violating people's inalienable rights and seizing for itself the powers of Congress and the president."

Brett Wilkins ·


Critics Say Biden Drilling Bonanza 'Won't Lower Gas Prices' But 'Will Worsen Climate Crisis'

"President Biden's massive public lands giveaway in the face of utter climate catastrophe is just the latest sign that his climate commitments are mere rhetoric," said one campaigner.

Kenny Stancil ·


Grave Warnings as Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Threatens 'Future of Voting Rights'

"Buckle up," implores one prominent legal scholar. "An extreme decision here could fundamentally alter the balance of power in setting election rules in the states and provide a path for great threats to elections."

Brett Wilkins ·

Common Dreams Logo