## Constitutional Reform and Corporate Accountability: The Structural Changes Democracy Requires
*This is Part 4 of a 5-part series examining how wealth captures democracy and what we can do about it. Parts 1–3 explored the problems of wealth capture and proven solutions like democracy vouchers and clean elections. Now we examine the deeper structural changes needed to permanently restore democratic equality.*
—
Five Supreme Court justices killed American democracy on January 21, 2010.
Not with bullets or bombs, but with words. In *Citizens United v. FEC*, they declared that money equals speech, corporations are people, and limiting billionaire political spending violates the Constitution [32].
The results were immediate and devastating. Dark money exploded from $5.2 million in 2006 to $1.9 billion in 2024 [7]. Super PACs—which didn’t exist before the decision—raised $4.6 billion in the last election [9]. Corporations that couldn’t legally spend on elections suddenly had unlimited political power.
But here’s what the Court didn’t want you to know: their decision wasn’t required by the Constitution. It was a choice. A choice to prioritize concentrated wealth over democratic equality. A choice that other democracies explicitly reject.
Canada’s Supreme Court ruled the opposite way. They declared that spending limits are essential for democratic equality [40]. Germany allows campaign finance restrictions to preserve fair competition [42]. France bans corporate contributions entirely [43]. These countries have robust free speech protections. They also have functional democracies.
The American Court chose plutocracy. But choices can be reversed. Constitutions can be amended. Corporate power can be constrained. The structural reforms needed are clear. What’s missing is the will to implement them.
—
## The Court’s War on Democracy
### How Five Justices Legalized Corruption
The Supreme Court didn’t stumble into plutocracy. They built it methodically over decades.
*Buckley v. Valeo* (1976) started the demolition. The Court declared that spending money on politics is protected speech [33]. This created an absurd distinction: Congress can limit direct contributions but not independent expenditures. The result is a system where billionaires can’t hand candidates $10,000 directly but can spend $10 million supporting them independently.
*Citizens United* (2010) completed the destruction [32]. The Court gave corporations the same First Amendment rights as human beings. Corporations can’t vote, can’t serve on juries, can’t run for office. But somehow they have unlimited “speech” rights that translate to unlimited political power.
*McCutcheon v. FEC* (2014) removed aggregate contribution limits [34]. Previously, individuals couldn’t give more than $123,000 total per election cycle. McCutcheon eliminated this cap. Now a single donor can contribute $3.6 million by giving maximum amounts to unlimited candidates and committees.
*Arizona Free Enterprise Club* (2011) attacked public financing itself [35]. The Court struck down provisions that gave publicly funded candidates extra money when facing high-spending opponents. This made it harder for clean elections candidates to compete against wealthy opponents.
Each decision made democracy more expensive and less democratic. Together, they created a constitutional framework that protects wealth extraction while preventing democratic reform.
### The Manufactured Jurisprudence
These decisions rest on false premises that the Court invented.
First, that money equals speech. Money isn’t speech—it’s property. When billionaires spend millions on elections, they’re not expressing opinions. They’re purchasing outcomes. The Court confused volume with voice, conflating the ability to buy amplification with the right to free expression.
Second, that corporations deserve human rights. Corporations are legal fictions created by government. They exist to limit liability and pool capital, not to participate in democracy. Giving corporations political rights while exempting them from political responsibilities creates systematic advantages over actual humans.
Third, that corruption only means explicit bribery. The Court defined corruption so narrowly that only cartoon villainy counts. Unless there’s an explicit quid pro quo—a briefcase of cash for a specific vote—it’s not corruption. Systematic bias, institutional capture, and legal bribery don’t qualify.
These false premises weren’t required by precedent or constitutional text. They were choices. Choices that consistently favor concentrated wealth over democratic participation.
—
## Regulatory Reforms: What’s Possible Now
While constitutional amendment provides the comprehensive solution, significant improvements are possible through regulatory action alone.
### Closing Enforcement Loopholes
The Federal Election Commission operates in perpetual deadlock by design. Three Republican commissioners, three Democratic commissioners, and most decisions require four votes. The result: systematic non-enforcement.
Breaking this deadlock doesn’t require legislation. The President could appoint commissioners committed to actual enforcement rather than partisan protection. The FEC could adopt broader coordination rules that capture reality rather than fiction. Penalties could increase to make violation unprofitable rather than cost-effective.
Coordination rules are particularly ripe for reform. Current rules allow “independent” groups to share consultants, data, and strategies with campaigns while maintaining legal independence. Strengthening these rules would reduce the influence of Super PACs without requiring new legislation.
### Transparency as Disinfectant
Dark money thrives on secrecy. Comprehensive disclosure requirements would expose hidden influence networks without limiting speech.
The DISCLOSE Act, repeatedly blocked by Senate filibusters, would require organizations spending over $10,000 on elections to disclose donors above $10,000. This simple transparency would reveal who funds political messages.
But even without legislation, executive action could increase transparency. Federal contractors could be required to disclose political spending. The SEC could require public companies to report political expenditures to shareholders. The IRS could enforce existing restrictions on 501(c)(4) political activities.
Real-time disclosure would be transformative. Current rules allow delays that hide funding sources until after elections. Technology enables immediate disclosure. Voters deserve to know who’s funding political messages before they vote, not after.
### Foreign Money Restrictions
Foreign interference in American elections is already illegal. But loopholes make the ban meaningless.
Foreign-owned corporations incorporated in America can spend unlimited amounts on elections. Shell companies hide foreign funding sources. “Dark money” groups launder foreign contributions through multiple entities.
Closing these loopholes requires defining “foreign influence” broadly. Any corporation with significant foreign ownership, board representation, or control should be prohibited from political spending. Shell companies should face piercing disclosure requirements. Dark money groups should prove their funding is entirely domestic.
These reforms protect both national sovereignty and market integrity. When foreign interests can purchase American political outcomes, both democracy and capitalism suffer.
—
## Corporate Accountability Beyond Courts
### Shareholder Democracy
Corporations spend shareholder money on politics without shareholder consent. This violates basic principles of corporate governance.
Public companies should require shareholder approval for political expenditures above specified thresholds. Annual reports should detail all political spending, including indirect spending through trade associations. Board committees should oversee political activities to ensure they serve business purposes rather than executive preferences.
The UK requires shareholder approval for political spending. Several European countries mandate disclosure. These requirements haven’t harmed business—they’ve improved corporate governance.
Market forces can supplement regulatory requirements. When consumers know which companies fund which causes, they vote with their wallets. When investors understand political risks, they price them accordingly. Transparency enables market discipline.
### Government Contractor Restrictions
Companies receiving taxpayer money shouldn’t use it for political influence. This creates obvious conflicts of interest and circular corruption.
Federal contractors above specified thresholds should be prohibited from political contributions and expenditures. Companies can choose: government contracts or political spending, not both. This isn’t restricting speech—it’s preventing conflicts of interest.
Several states already impose contractor restrictions. They work. Contractors compete on merit rather than political connections. Procurement costs decrease. Service quality improves.
### Duty of Loyalty Standards
Corporate executives have fiduciary duties to shareholders. Political spending that serves executive interests rather than business purposes violates these duties.
Courts could enforce existing fiduciary standards more rigorously. Shareholders could challenge political expenditures through derivative suits. The SEC could require certification that political spending serves legitimate business purposes.
These mechanisms exist. They just need enforcement. When executives face personal liability for political spending that doesn’t serve shareholder interests, behavior changes quickly.
—
## Constitutional Amendment: The Permanent Solution
### The For the People Amendment
The amendment needed is simple and clear:
**Section 1:** “To advance democratic self-government and political equality, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.”
**Section 2:** “Congress and the States shall have power to distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.”
**Section 3:** “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”
This amendment would overturn *Citizens United* while preserving genuine free speech protections. It distinguishes between human beings with rights and corporate entities with privileges. It allows reasonable regulations while protecting press freedom.
### Building Amendment Momentum
Constitutional amendments are difficult but not impossible. Seventeen states have already called for an amendment overturning *Citizens United* [36]. When 34 states call for a convention, Congress must act.
Polling shows overwhelming support. 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats want Citizens United overturned [51]. This isn’t partisan—it’s American. People across the political spectrum recognize that unlimited political spending corrupts democracy.
The state-by-state strategy builds pressure. Each state resolution demonstrates growing momentum. Vermont led in 2014. California, New York, and Illinois followed. Red states and blue states alike recognize the threat money poses to democracy.
Business leaders increasingly support amendment. They’re tired of the political shakedown. They want to compete through innovation, not campaign contributions. They recognize that corruption threatens capitalism as much as democracy.
### Learning from Success: International Models
Other democracies prove that limiting money in politics strengthens both democracy and markets.
**Canada** combines contribution limits, spending caps, and public funding [39]. Their economy ranks among the world’s most competitive. Their democracy ranks among the least corrupt.
**Germany** balances public and private funding while restricting corporate influence [42]. They maintain Europe’s strongest economy alongside robust democratic participation.
**France** limits campaign spending to roughly $22 million for presidential races [43]. American presidential candidates spend 100 times more. Yet French democracy functions better by every measure.
These countries don’t choose between free speech and fair elections. They protect both. Their courts recognize that unlimited spending undermines rather than advances democratic discourse.
—
## The Interconnected Reforms
Campaign finance reform enables other democratic reforms. Money currently blocks progress on every issue.
### Primary Reform
Primaries often determine general elections, especially in gerrymandered districts. But primary voters tend to be more ideological and wealthy than general election voters. Money amplifies these distortions.
Public financing would democratize primaries. Democracy vouchers would give all voters equal influence. Spending limits would prevent wealthy candidates from overwhelming grassroots opponents.
When primaries become genuinely competitive, general elections follow. When money doesn’t determine outcomes, merit might.
### Information Ecosystem Repair
Dark money doesn’t just fund candidates—it shapes information. Think tanks, advocacy groups, and even academic institutions receive corporate funding that influences their work.
Transparency requirements should extend beyond elections. Any organization attempting to influence policy should disclose funding sources. Academic research should acknowledge corporate support. Think tanks should reveal donor influence.
When citizens know who funds information, they can evaluate it appropriately. When sunlight reaches dark money networks, corruption becomes visible.
### Court Reform Prerequisites
The Supreme Court has become increasingly politicized, with dark money groups spending millions on confirmation battles. The Judicial Crisis Network spent $17 million supporting Justice Gorsuch [60].
Campaign finance reform would reduce the stakes of Court appointments. When money can’t purchase policy, controlling courts matters less. When democratic processes work, judicial intervention becomes less necessary.
Constitutional amendment would also enable Court reform. If amendments can overturn Court decisions, the Court becomes less powerful. This could enable term limits, expansion, or other reforms that restore judicial legitimacy.
—
## The Path Forward
The reforms needed are clear:
– Immediate regulatory improvements through enforcement and transparency
– Corporate accountability through shareholder democracy and contractor restrictions
– Constitutional amendment to overturn *Citizens United*
– International models proving alternatives work
The obstacles are political, not practical. Politicians who depend on corrupt systems won’t reform them voluntarily. But public pressure is building. Every scandal increases demands for reform. Every election deepens public cynicism about money’s influence.
The choice is stark: oligarchy or democracy. The Supreme Court chose oligarchy. The people can choose differently.
—
## What’s Coming Next
This installment examined the structural reforms democracy requires—from regulatory improvements to constitutional amendment. These changes face fierce resistance from interests that profit from corruption.
Part 5 explores how to build coalitions strong enough to overcome that resistance. Historical examples show that Americans have defeated entrenched corruption before. Contemporary movements prove that bipartisan reform remains possible.
The path from plutocracy to democracy requires understanding not just what needs changing, but how to build the power to change it.
**Next:** [Part 5 – Building Coalitions Against Extraction](https://dittany.com/building-coalitions)
—
## Sources
All sources cited in this article are available in the comprehensive bibliography for this series: [Bibliography – Money in Politics Series](https://dittany.com/bibliography-money-in-politics-series)
## The Complete Series
– **Part 1:** [The Auction Block Democracy](https://dittany.com/auction-block-democracy) – How the fundraising treadmill corrupts representation
– **Part 2:** [The Shadow System](https://dittany.com/shadow-system) – The influence infrastructure beyond campaign contributions
– **Part 3:** [Clean Elections](https://dittany.com/clean-elections) – Proven solutions that actually work
– **Part 4:** Constitutional Reform and Corporate Accountability – Structural changes democracy requires
– **Part 5:** [Building Coalitions](https://dittany.com/building-coalitions) – How bipartisan reform defeats special interests
Each article stands alone, but together they provide a comprehensive roadmap for freeing democracy from wealth capture.