Whitehouse Highlights Amicus Brief Detailing Dark Money Corruption After Oral Arguments in NRSC v. FEC

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, issued the following statement after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC):

"The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court appears ready to strike down one of the few remaining commonsense anti-corruption limits and overrule the Court's own precedent on the way. Citizens United unleashed a tsunami of slime that has fundamentally distorted our political process. The Court should not nullify yet another anti-corruption provision; instead, it should undo the indisputably wrong Citizens United decision," said Whitehouse.

In NRSC v. FEC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is asking the Supreme Court to strike down federal limits on expenditures by political parties made in coordination with political candidates. Political parties can accept larger donations from donors than can political candidates, and striking down coordinated party expenditure limits would make it easier for political parties to pour unlimited money into elections across the country.

In October, Whitehouse filed an amicus curiae - or "friend of the court" - briefurging the Supreme Court to reconsider Citizens United, which unleashed corrupting dark money into elections, based on a foundation of false fact-finding.

The Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC struck down a key provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which has enabled giant corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals to engage in unlimited political spending. 501(c)(4) organizations have become fountains of political dark money, and dark-money front groups were created or co-opted to obscure the political maneuverings of industry influence. In the years since Citizens United, the Supreme Court has struck down other commonsense provisions like the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute (McCutcheon v. FEC) and has invalidated the post-election loan repayment limit (FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate).

This series of Court rulings has eroded fundamental campaign finance rules and thwarted Congressional efforts to limit corruption in American democracy. The senators' brief highlights the explosion of political spending by the fossil fuel industry and the derailing of serious bipartisan efforts to combat climate change as a direct consequence of the Court's campaign finance rulings.

The senators also point out the false fact-finding in Citizens United. The Supreme Court disregarded Congress's extensive factual findings supporting major campaign finance laws to declare-without any record evidence-that unlimited political expenditures would not lead to corruption, and relied on two factual predicates to do so, both of which have been since proven false.

Whitehouse published a law review article in February 2024 shedding light on the Court's propensity for finding and relying on false facts, how those false facts help to deliver decisions that advantage partisan Republican or corporate special interests, and how false facts are not entitled to the deference owed determinations of law.

Whitehouse has long led the charge to end the scourge of dark money in American politics. The Senator's DISCLOSE Act would require organizations spending money in elections - including super PACs and 501(c)(4) dark money groups - to promptly disclose donors who give $10,000 or more during an election cycle. In addition to election disclosure requirements, the bill would require groups that spend money on ads supporting or opposing judicial nominees to disclose their donors.