State Trigger Laws Emerge as Strategy to Challenge Citizens United Decision
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Citizens United has ignited a surge of substantial financial influence in American politics. Despite its controversial nature, this ruling remains deeply embedded in the legal framework, with the Court showing no inclination to revisit the decision. However, a tactic that proved successful for anti-abortion advocates could be adapted for campaign finance reform: implementing state trigger laws aimed at directly questioning the ruling’s validity.
The decision that allows unlimited election spending by affluent individuals and corporations is often criticized as unpopular, historically unfounded, and antidemocratic. Nonetheless, states are not obligated to passively accept this ruling. Legislative measures, such as the Freedom to Vote Act, can work within existing legal doctrines to constrain the decision’s impact. Furthermore, direct challenges to the legitimacy of Citizens United through trigger laws can be pivotal.
Trigger laws are crafted to be unconstitutional under current legal standards but include conditional clauses that activate them once a change in constitutional interpretation occurs. This method bypasses immediate judicial review, preventing courts from invalidating them while enabling legal innovators to envisage a different campaign finance system.
The long-term goal of overturning Citizens United will necessitate the collaborative efforts of scholars, activists, and lawmakers. State legislatures and public initiatives can play a crucial role by enacting trigger laws that challenge the Court’s decisions. Such laws have proven effective in the past. The anti-abortion movement’s use of trigger laws ultimately contributed to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs case.
Trigger laws, by remaining inactive at the time of passage, avoid judicial scrutiny and provide an opportunity to challenge existing legal doctrines without risking adverse decisions. They complement other strategies challenging Citizens United by allowing lawmakers to envision an alternative campaign finance landscape. As official actions of state governments, they convey a more durable message than temporary political protests.
Other campaign finance rulings by the Supreme Court, such as McCutcheon v. FEC and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett, have similarly faced criticism for undermining democratic principles. Pro-democracy legislators are encouraged to challenge these decisions through trigger laws, advocating for a First Amendment interpretation that prioritizes broad democratic participation over the influence of wealthy donors.
Explanatory sections within trigger laws, such as preambles or statements of purpose, serve to detail the reasons behind their enactment. Here, lawmakers can document how Citizens United has eroded democratic values by fostering unlimited political spending and allowing wealth to overshadow the voices of average citizens. This documentation counters the Supreme Court’s assertion that financial contributions for political access do not constitute corruption.
While the argument to overturn Citizens United might seem improbable in the current judicial climate, it remains a crucial endeavor. Historical precedents indicate that persistent efforts to reshape constitutional law can succeed over time when supported by public resolve.
By advancing trigger laws, state legislators embark on a significant journey toward revoking Citizens United.
