It is 16 years since the Supreme Court ruling which enabled people like Elon Musk to coordinate his donations with the Trump campaign.
Here are extracts from a Huffpost article from 2025:
The 2024 presidential campaign for Trump, left, directly coordinated with Musk’s super PAC to help turn out the vote in the November elections. Brandon Bell via Associated Press
Super PACs and other outside groups allowed to raise unlimited contributions are ostensibly meant to be independent from the political parties and candidates they support — at least, that was the rationale given by the Supreme Court in its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which enabled corporations and the wealthy to make such contributions.
Since then, the courts, the FEC and opportunistic political party actors have knocked down the wall of independence between the political action committees and the campaigns that the Citizens United court had presumed.
What the country is left with is the worst of all possible worlds. The political parties are hollow and weak, especially at the state level. Members of Congress spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising, for themselves and their party. Their campaigns send out endless, often deceptive solicitations for small-dollar donations. Meanwhile, nonparty actors, fueled by billionaire donations, control what should be party activities and buy themselves an amount of power and access that was previously unheard of.
It’s time to admit an uncomfortable fact: 15 years after Citizens United, campaign finance reform is dead.
This doesn’t mean that efforts to regulate money in politics no longer exist or have no future. What it does mean is that existing campaign finance laws no longer serve their stated purpose of preventing corruption and empowering the voices of ordinary citizens. Those still on the books also face an uncertain future in the face of a deeply hostile judiciary that will only get more hostile as Trump appoints even more conservative judges to the federal bench………
But the Supreme Court’s shift to the right that began with the appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006 has effectively neutered that law.
This started in 2007 when the court blew up the McCain-Feingold limits on corporate-funded issue ads by nonprofits, ruling that the limits violated the free speech rights of those corporations and groups. Then, in 2010, the Citizens United decision vastly expanded that to all outside spending: The court ruled that corporations could freely fund independent political spending, saying that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” A lower court extended that ruling to allow funds from individuals, which enabled the creation of the super PAC.
A wide array of outside groups immediately popped up — many with explicit connections to parties and candidates, despite the court’s supposed insistence on independence. Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign incubated the super PAC Restore Our Future before he announced his candidacy and then made it “independent” afterward.
The lines of independence continued to crumble thanks to enforcement decisions by the FEC. Candidates were allowed to appear at super PAC fundraisers so long as they did not personally ask for sums exceeding the candidate contribution limit. Super PACs could use materials and information posted online by candidates and parties, including videos, images, ad messaging and targeting strategy. In the 2016 GOP presidential primaries, single-candidate super PACs effectively took over campaign operations by hosting rallies where their candidate would appear as a “special guest.” Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was accused of openly coordinating with the super PAC Correct the Record — and was let off the hook by the FEC
The coup de grâce came in early 2024, after the law firm of Democratic Party lawyer Marc Elias petitioned the FEC to allow a Democratic-aligned super PAC in Texas to coordinate with candidates when engaged in voter turnout efforts. The FEC’s decision gave the thumbs-up to direct coordination between candidates, parties and super PACs on one of the most vital elements of campaigning: voter engagement and turnout.
But it wasn’t Democrats who took advantage. Republicans immediately seized the opportunity. Trump outsourced his ground game to groups like Turning Point USA and Musk’s America PAC while directly coordinating with them. Whatever lines existed between the independent spending envisioned by the Supreme Court in its Citizens United ruling and the candidates and parties backed by such groups were no more.
Note: Mitch McConnell’s embracing of the Supreme Court’s decision, reported here in 2014:
Even in Washington, few have embraced the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision more vociferously than long-time campaign finance reform foe Senator Mitch McConnell. In a brief to the Supreme Court in 2012, he argued that critics of the decision got it exactly wrong: despite the warnings, unlimited spending from corporate treasuries had not skyrocketed, and the decision should stand.
Senator McConnell may have a point—or half of one. While it’s impossible to know exactly how much corporate spending Citizens United has unleashed (because so much spending is no longer disclosed), four years on, it has become apparent that the biggest impact of the decision may have little to do with the spending of “corporate wealth.”
Rather, as our colleague Ian Vandewalker points out in his recent analysis of spending in the most competitive Senate races of 2014, it is now apparent that the decision’s biggest impact may be that it opened the door to two types of political spending entities that could completely undermine the integrity of what’s left of our campaign finance system: candidate-specific super PACs and dark money groups. Candidate-specific super PACs undercut federal contribution limits to candidates by allowing individuals to direct unlimited sums of money in support of someone running for office, while dark money groups evade the disclosure requirements for political contributions that currently exist under federal law.
It may be that no single race better exemplifies these developments, and foreshadows the shape of future federal elections, than Senator McConnell’s competitive re-election contest against Alison Lundergan Grimes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, considering McConnell’s current position and the potential for him to become Senate Majority Leader, the Kentucky race has attracted massive spending on both sides, including significant activity by new outside spending entities.
During 2005, President George W. Bush appointed Federal Circuit Court Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments were the culmination of years of examination of the work, character, and temperament of both men commencing during the 2000 presidential transition. Our evaluation included face-to-face interviews; an analysis of judicial opinions, speeches, and writings; and conversation with friends, colleagues, and court experts. Based on this work, a select group of Bush Administration officials developed a set of predictors that formed the basis of our recommendation to President Bush that he elevate Circuit Court Judges Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. This Article explains how Judges Roberts and Alito were evaluated, and our assessment of how they would perform on the Court. The Article then examines whether the Bush Administration correctly predicted how these two men would decide cases before the Court by reviewing some of their most significant opinions to date.
We begin with an explanation of the process used in developing our recommendation to the President followed by a thorough examination of the factors we weighed (such as political considerations and confirmation challenges). The Article includes a thorough, though certainly not exhaustive, review of the circuit court opinions of each man. This early body of work is then compared to their most recent work on the Supreme Court in certain key areas of the law. There is a remarkable, though not unexpected, consistency between Justices Roberts’s and Alito’s jurisprudence on the circuit courts and on the Supreme Court. Based on this comparison, the Article concludes that the Bush Administration successfully anticipated that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would decide cases using a consistent set of principles including judicial restraint, respect for precedent, and statutory interpretation based on plain language.
There are many decisions and events that define a presidency. Sometimes a president is defined by his response to an attack on American soil, such as Pearl Harbor or September 11th. A president’s legacy has also been shaped by the manner in which he leads the country through a crisis like the Great Depression, or serves as Commander-in-Chief during a world war. One type of decision that receives too little public attention, but which often represents a president’s most enduring legacy, is a president’s appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because the U.S. Constitution provides federal judges life tenure, appointees serve well beyond the term of the president who appointed them, and their decisions will affect the lives of Americans spanning over several administrations. Although unelected, the votes of the members of the Court often do affect the policy decisions of the elected branches. On matters of constitutional questions, absent a subsequent contrary constitutional amendment or a change in the majority make-up of the Court, these decisions on law and policy by the Court are final and binding.
Every administration approaches Supreme Court nominations differently. President George W. Bush, understanding their importance, directed me in early 2001, as White House Counsel, to develop a list of potential nominees in anticipation of a vacancy. After consulting with some of my predecessors in the White House, my team of lawyers in the Counsel’s Office institutionalized a formal selection process. Relying in part upon that process, President Bush nominated Judges John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005. This Article describes the nomination process employed by the Bush Administration and examines the reasons for the Roberts and Alito nominations. Next, the Article describes our expectations in 2005 for both men as members of the Supreme Court. Finally, the Article examines the most significant of their Supreme Court opinions, and compares those to the expectations of the Bush Administration. Based on that comparison, the Article concludes that the Bush White House was successful in predicting how Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would decide cases before the Supreme Court. As a result, one can argue that President Bush achieved his objective of nominating judges who would consistently decide cases based on a conservative set of principles, thus placing the jurisprudence of the Court on a conservative path for future generations.
There is an interesting piece about the impressive career path of Sherrill Redmon, Mitch McConnell’s first wife with whom he had 3 children. The marriage lasted from 1968 for 12 years.
Here is an extract:
Sherrill Redmon net worth has never been publicly revealed, though estimates place it around $2 million. Her financial independence stems primarily from her academic career as director of the Sophia Smith Collection rather than divorce settlement from McConnell. In contrast to McConnell, whose political career made him a millionaire, Redmon’s legacy is measured not in wealth but in the positive impact she made on feminist research and education. Her professional recognition comes from transforming the Sophia Smith Collection into an internationally recognized archive.
The political contrast with ex-husband Mitch McConnell
Redmon’s strong beliefs in gender equality and social justice often contrasted with her husband’s conservative political views. Gloria Steinem, in a 2020 email to The New Yorker, remarked: “I can only imagine how painful it must be to marry and have children with a democratic Jekyll and see him turn into a corrupt and authoritarian Hyde”. Notably, her youngest daughter Porter inherited her feminist values, working as director of the Take On Wall Street campaign with views differing vastly from her conservative father[183].
Conclusion
Sherrill Redmon’s story demonstrates how one woman carved her own path despite being overshadowed by a famous political spouse. Her decades-long commitment to preserving diverse voices in women’s history created resources that scholars still rely on today. Without doubt, her legacy lies not in her twelve-year marriage to Mitch McConnell, but in the transformed Sophia Smith Collection that stands as testament to her feminist vision and dedication to amplifying marginalized perspectives in American history.
Retired, living in the Scottish Borders after living most of my life in cities in England. I can now indulge my interest in all aspects of living close to nature in a wild landscape. I live on what was once the Iapetus Ocean which took millions of years to travel from the Southern Hemisphere to here in the Northern Hemisphere. That set me thinking and questioning and seeking answers.
In 1998 I co-wrote Millennium Countdown (US)/ A Business Guide to the Year 2000 (UK) see https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9780749427917
borderslynn 
You must be logged in to post a comment.