April 24, 2026
Dark money, darker comments
The Era of Citizens United Could Be Nearing Its End
Hope vs hopeless: commenters brawl over a bid to end Citizens United
TLDR: A Maine case could crack Citizens United and the dark-money flood it enabled. Commenters split between cynics predicting the Supreme Court will swat it down and reformers pushing state corporate-charter bans on election spending—because who buys our elections decides policy.
A scrappy Maine lawsuit is being hyped as the first real shot in years at kneecapping Citizens United — the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited “independent” election spending. The article paints a grim backdrop: super PACs (mega political fundraising groups) outspending actual campaigns, nearly $2 billion in dark money last cycle, and AI and crypto tycoons pouring cash into politics. The community’s verdict? Equal parts popcorn and pessimism.
The hottest thread is pure cynic energy. One crowd insists the Supreme Court will “just decline” to touch this — hope is canceled. Others go full nihilist: if a ruling hurts one party, it’s dead on arrival; “there is no law… these days,” says one. Meanwhile, a surprising coalition of pragmatists shows up with a workaround: forget the justices, change state corporate charters to ban companies from spending on elections. That state-level hack — reportedly brewing in places like Montana and Maine — has commenters chanting “don’t argue with the refs, change the game.”
Memes are flying: “Democracy Prime Day,” “money printer politics,” and riffs on “corporations are people until payday.” Optimists frame the case as flipping Citizens United against itself. Skeptics call any anti-corruption ruling from this court “a laughable proposition.” Either way, the comment section is treating this like a cage match for the soul of American elections — with dark money as the heel and state laws as the surprise tag-team partner.
Key Points
- •A Maine lawsuit is presented as a significant opportunity to challenge the campaign finance system shaped by Citizens United v. FEC.
- •In the last election cycle, PACs and super PACs together spent more than all candidate campaigns combined.
- •Approximately one in five dollars to super PACs came from nondisclosing organizations, and about $2 billion in independent spending was dark money.
- •In the current cycle, super PACs have already spent nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, with notable funding from AI and cryptocurrency industries seeking policy influence.
- •Polls indicate most Americans oppose unlimited election spending; the article notes Citizens United is one of two doctrines enabling the current system, with another untested at the Supreme Court.