There are three ways to overturn Citizens United v. FEC: the Supreme Court can reverse itself in a later case, the Constitution can be amended to override the ruling, or Congress can pass legislation that limits the decision’s practical effects without touching the holding. All three have precedent in other areas of law. None is easy, and the most realistic near-term progress is probably legislative, focused on disclosure rather than on reversing the First Amendment holding itself.
Before weighing the paths, it helps to be precise about what the 2010 ruling actually did, because much of the public conversation blurs it.
What the Ruling Actually Decided
In January 2010, the Supreme Court held 5–4 that the federal ban on corporations and unions spending their own treasury funds on independent political communications violated the First Amendment.1Cornell Law Institute. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The decision struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) that had restricted corporate and union spending on “electioneering communications” close to elections, and it overruled the Court’s own 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce along with part of its 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC.2Federal Election Commission. Citizens United v. FEC
The ruling reaches only independent expenditures, meaning spending that is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. Direct contribution limits still apply. For the 2025–2026 cycle, an individual can give no more than $3,500 per election to a federal candidate, and corporations still cannot contribute directly to candidates at all.3Federal Election Commission. Contribution Limits for 2025-2026
Months later, the D.C. Circuit extended the logic in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, ruling that if independent expenditures cannot corrupt, then contributions to groups making only independent expenditures cannot corrupt either.4Federal Election Commission. SpeechNow.org v. FEC Together, the two decisions produced Super PACs: committees that take unlimited money from individuals, corporations, and unions, spend it only on independent expenditures, and are barred from coordinating with candidates.3Federal Election Commission. Contribution Limits for 2025-2026 Any serious plan to undo the current system has to grapple with both rulings, not just Citizens United.
Path One: The Supreme Court Reverses Itself
The most direct route is for the Court to hear a new case and abandon the precedent. This happens. The Library of Congress has tracked more than 230 instances since 1810 where the Court explicitly overruled a prior decision. Citizens United itself did this, discarding Austin and part of McConnell.
When the Court considers overruling precedent, it weighs whether the original reasoning was sound, whether the rule has proven workable, whether related legal doctrine has shifted, and whether people and institutions have relied on the existing rule. Reversal also requires a vehicle: someone must bring a challenge to a campaign finance law, lose in the lower courts under the current framework, and persuade at least four Justices to grant certiorari. The Court receives roughly 7,000 petitions each term and accepts fewer than 100.5United States Courts. About U.S. District Courts Cases can come up through the federal appellate system or from a state’s highest court when a federal constitutional question is presented.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1257 – State Courts; Certiorari
The composition of the Court is decisive. The original vote was 5–4, and the current majority has shown no interest in reconsidering the holding that independent political spending is protected speech. That makes the judicial route the least plausible near-term path, even though it is the one that produced the ruling in the first place.
Path Two: A Constitutional Amendment
A constitutional amendment is the only way to permanently override a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Article V lays out two proposal methods. Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote of the members present in each chamber, which is how all 27 existing amendments began.7Legal Information Institute. Overview of Article V Alternatively, two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) can apply to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. That second method has never been used.
Once proposed, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states). Congress decides whether ratification runs through state legislatures or special conventions. The convention route to ratification has been used only once, for the Twenty-First Amendment repealing Prohibition.8Cornell Law School. U.S. Constitution Annotated – Amendment XXI – Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment
There is direct precedent for amending the Constitution to override the Court. The Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, gave Congress the power to levy an income tax without apportionment among the states, reversing the 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co.
Amendments Proposed So Far
Several constitutional amendments aimed at Citizens United have been introduced, none close to the required two-thirds. In February 2025, Representative Pramila Jayapal introduced the We the People Amendment (H.J.Res. 54), which would establish that constitutional rights belong to natural persons rather than corporations, that spending money is not the same as protected speech, and that all political contributions and expenditures at every level of government must be publicly disclosed.
At least 22 states have passed formal resolutions calling for an amendment on money in politics, and hundreds of local governments have followed. That is still well short of the 34-state threshold to force a convention, and no state-driven convention application has ever crossed that line on any topic. Polling has consistently shown broad public support for limiting money in politics, but that support has not translated into two-thirds majorities in Congress or 38 state ratifications. The framers built the process to be hard, and on this question it has been.
Path Three: Legislation That Works Around the Ruling
Congress can regulate the effects of unlimited independent spending without overturning the decision, provided the legislation survives First Amendment review. The dominant strategy is transparency: forcing organizations to identify who is paying for political communications.
The DISCLOSE Act
The DISCLOSE Act has been reintroduced across multiple sessions of Congress. The 2026 version would require Super PACs, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, corporations, and other entities spending more than $10,000 on elections or judicial nominations to promptly disclose donors who contributed more than $10,000. It would close intermediary loopholes used to hide original donors, extend “stand by your ad” disclaimers to online and social media advertising, and treat payments to social media influencers promoting or opposing candidates as reportable political spending. The bill has been introduced repeatedly and has not passed either chamber.
Foreign Spending
Federal law already bars foreign nationals from making contributions, donations, or independent expenditures in any federal, state, or local election, and forbids them from participating in election-related decisions at any organization that spends politically.9Federal Election Commission. Foreign Nationals Legislative proposals have focused on tightening enforcement, particularly against shell companies that could route foreign money into U.S. elections.
Corporate Governance Approaches
A different legislative angle targets corporate decision-making. The proposed Shareholder Protection Act would require companies to get shareholder approval before spending corporate funds on political activity. No federal law currently requires companies to notify shareholders of political spending or give them a vote on it. Investor-led campaigns have separately pushed publicly traded companies to adopt voluntary disclosure codes, and a growing share of S&P 500 companies have done so, though the practice remains voluntary.
Why Disclosure Is a Separate Fight
Overturning Citizens United would not, by itself, solve the transparency problem the ruling is often blamed for. Section 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations are tax-exempt nonprofits that can engage in political activity so long as it is not their primary purpose, and they are not required to publicly disclose their donors. When these groups run political ads, viewers see the ad but not the funder. That is what critics call “dark money,” and it exists because of tax law, not because of Citizens United.
The current landscape is the product of three layers stacked together: Citizens United permits unlimited independent spending, SpeechNow permits unlimited contributions to groups making only independent expenditures, and existing tax law allows certain nonprofits to withhold donor identities. Reversing the first alone would leave the disclosure gap intact. Mandatory disclosure laws, on the other hand, could address most of the public’s concerns about anonymous political spending without disturbing the First Amendment holding at all.
The Realistic Outlook
Each path runs into a different wall. A Supreme Court reversal needs the right case in front of a Court whose current majority has shown no interest in revisiting campaign finance first principles. A constitutional amendment needs supermajority agreement in Congress and among the states that no campaign finance proposal has ever achieved. Legislation has the lowest procedural bar, but faces the Senate filibuster and would still need to survive judicial review under the very precedent it seeks to sidestep.
What has shifted since 2010 is the record. The real-world consequences of unlimited independent spending are now well documented, and the growth of dark money through undisclosed nonprofit donors has moved the debate toward transparency. Disclosure-focused legislation has drawn support even from some who agree with the Citizens United holding, on the view that voters are entitled to know who is paying to influence their choices. Whether that translates into enacted law depends on the same political dynamics that have stalled every prior attempt.