For much of modern American history, political access functioned as a competitive but human-scale system. Some interests undeniably carried more sway than others, but access was still constrained by time, attention, and institutional norms. Elected officials and senior policymakers invariably faced pressure from many directions—constituents, civic organizations, advocacy groups, and subject-matter experts—all competing for limited space on the agenda.
No voice was guaranteed priority, and persuasion still depended, in significant part, on evidence, credibility, and public interest.
That balance has been fundamentally altered.
In its 2010 Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court held that limits on independent political expenditures violated the First Amendment, reasoning that greater spending produced more “speech” in the marketplace of ideas. Central to that logic was an assumption: that such spending—so long as it was not coordinated directly with candidates—would not corrupt government or distort democratic access, particularly in a system supported by transparency and disclosure.
Fifteen years later, that assumption no longer matches reality.
A recent New York Times investigation, “Hundreds of Big Post-Election Donors Have Benefited From Trump’s Return to Office” (Dec. 22), documents how just 346 donors—fewer people than a single high-school graduating class—directed more than half a billion dollars into political spending that produced immediate and tangible rewards, including pardons, senior appointments, and direct policy influence.
This is not simply “more speech.” It is speech amplified to such a degree that it drowns out everything else in the room.
Government has a finite capacity to listen. When a small number of individuals can speak so loudly—through massive financial expenditures—that they dominate attention, they effectively drown out everything else in the room. The result is not a richer marketplace of ideas, but a distorted one in which ordinary citizens, local communities, and civic institutions struggle to be heard at all.
In that environment, the constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances remains intact in theory but erodes in practice. The door to participation is not formally closed—but it is effectively overwhelmed. When officials’ schedules, priorities, and political survival are dominated by the demands of a narrow donor class, the average citizen no longer has a meaningful chance to be heard.
This is more than a political complaint. It reflects a breakdown in the factual assumptions that once justified the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. Citizens across the country should be asserting—civically and publicly—that those assumptions no longer hold. Disclosure has proven porous, donor anonymity widespread, and access increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few.
This is not a call to silence speech, but to restore balance. A democracy cannot function if its leaders hear only those who can afford to shout the loudest. This concern should not depend on whether one is a republican, a democrat, or an independent, a liberal, or a conservative; it goes to the basic rights of citizens in a functioning democracy.
If the First Amendment protects the right to speak, democracy requires something just as essential: the right to be heard.
When money is allowed to drown out everything else in the room, that promise rings hollow.
Tom Dennis is a retired Washington lobbyist and a resident of Easton, Maryland.
Richard Marks says
“While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony”
Bob Dylan
Tom Dennis says
Richard, Dylan said it far better than I ever could.
John t smith ii says
I hear you, Tom.
Wilson Dean says
This is an excellent article. Unlimited contributions have not resulted in “more speech,” but have become a prerequisite in the Trump Administration where you must “pay to play.” This is not how democracy is supposed to work.
Kent Robertson says
Surely you don’t think Trump is the only politician or president who has favored donors with contracts or grants or favorable legislation???
Yes, we have a problem with big money in politics. Let’s fix that. But don’t pretend it’s a Trump problem.
Nick Fleck says
Granted, but enough of a quantitative change can produce a qualitative change.
Michael Pullen says
In fact, the Trump administration is beyond question the most corrupt administration in our history. Perhaps presidential historians might disagree, their consensus is that out of 45 presidents ranked, Trump, during his first term, came in at 43, only the third worst in our history.
I’m encouraged that you don’t try to defend him, that’s a good start. But “whataboutism” isn’t sufficient to excuse the open, rampant corruption of this administration.
Steve Clineburg says
Tom – Great analysis of one of the most pertinent problems in our current political environment. Indeed, unlimited contributions to political organizations and to organizations supported by prominent politicians (ballrooms, anyone?) have evicerated the regulatory framework that restrained the worst excesses of the business community and helped to alleviate the income disparity that currently permeates our economy. Kudos to you for highlighting this problem and to the NY Times for identifying the billionaires who are benefitting from this corruption of the democratic process.
Bob Parker says
Under the guise of “originalism” or Alternatively “literalism”, the so-called conservative wing of the Supreme Court through decisions such as “Citizens United” and “Rucho” have subverted the true intent of our Constitution. Indeed, if one looks at the effects of these rulings in the context of the Federalist Papers it is not beyond belief that if the authors of these letters were alive today they would be appalled at both decisions. Money is not speech, but money buys access to speech which is counter to the principle of ” one man, one vote”.
Chuck Petty says
Tom, this is an excellent statement about the Citizens case which reflects my own views. We have become a Nation dominated by a wealthy few, not by the ideas of the many. It will be most interesting to see whether the Supreme Court’s strict constructionist approach will now result in striking down the President’s Tariffs based on a statute which clearly does not set forth such authority.
Mickey Terrone says
I think we can make the leap between buying the right to be heard and buying the right to run the government. Trump not only sold Elon Musk massive influence for his hundreds of millions of campaign dollars, he gave Musk the keys to run an entire governmental department as DOGE czar, with massive control over thousands of employees as well as several billion-dollar government contracts. Trump didn’t just deliver Russell Vought strong influence to implement Project 2025, he gave Vought the job of Director of the Office of Management and Budget, literally to implement the authoritarian takeover.
Scott Bessent is now the US Treasury Secretary in position, as chief economic advisor, to effectively manage and radicalize the US monetary system, not just influence the administration’s policies.
The direction being driven by the “Heritage Foundation”-controlled SCOTUS is clearly toward oligarchy. The gloves are off. Numerous other billionaires occupy key positions in Trump’s cabinet and elsewhere in his administration. Making multi-million and billion corrupt deals feathering their own nests, the Trump Administration has virtually eliminated the House and Senate as a factor governing our country. SCOTUS’ shadow docket serves Trump as his virtual rubber stamp for the Executive Department’s extralegal actions.
Thus, oligarchy is already our new form of government now in effect and authoritarian fascism is well into its process of removing the final remnants of democracy. If we believe Trump will allow the results of the 2026 elections to undermine his de facto control of the Legislative branch of our government, I think we are naive. He already abuses the role of the military and that will further erode individual rights when Trump decides when to call a national emergency to save the nation from ANTIFA after getting drubbed in the 2026 election.
The voice of the people is mostly drowned out already. The Republicans in both Houses of Congress have assured that. The challenge will be for any semblance of our enfeebled democracy to survive the 2026 election. The US government has been bought and sold only 15 years after Citizens United was passed.