Constitutional Populism, Not Billionaire Populism

This was the fourth election cycle with no limits on spending since 2010, when the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and removed the remaining guardrails on money in politics. Donald J. Trump has been on the ballot in three of those four elections, backed by a refrain of “drain the swamp,” eliminate the “deep state,” and destroy the “elites.” In 2024, a rising populism fueled Trump’s victory and delivered Republicans the Senate and the House of Representatives, with a mandate to move power closer to the people. A proven method of constitutional populism can do just that, ending the era of systemically corrupt, top-down big money politics.

The major factor eroding American democracy is the truth behind the populist narrative of “wealthy elites” versus “the people.” The 2024 federal election cost more than $16 billion, compared to $6.5 billion in 2016. The money largely came from billionaires, corporations, big unions, and the wealthy donors who receive such loving attention from politicians. Both Trump and J.D. Vance point to the dysfunction of campaign funding, and the vice president-elect recently said, “The whole conduit of money into politics is fundamentally broken; I think we have to fix that.”

About 80% of the 2024 spending came from an elite donor class that comprises just 0.97% of the U.S. population. Six people alone – Elon Musk and five other billionaires – combined to put over $700 million behind the Trump campaign. Billionaires backed the Harris campaign, too. In October. Michael Bloomberg contributed $50 million after the Harris economic policy team gave him an in-depth briefing and Vice President Harris personally called him.

According to Pew Research, 80% of Americans believe wealthy donors have too much power and “elected officials don’t care what people like them think,” while 85% say the cost of campaigns “makes it hard for good people to run for office.” Only 16% of Americans “trust the government to do the right thing.”

It does not have to be this way. For the first 200 years of American history, the Supreme Court had never considered money in elections to raise a First Amendment issue. Americans have limited the power of money in politics since the Civil War. But in 1976 the Supreme Court came up with the new idea: Spending money in elections is free speech under the First Amendment. After decades of litigation and confusion created by the court’s new theory, the court tried to clarify things in Citizens United: Americans are not allowed to pass laws that limit election spending by billionaires, corporations, unions, or anything, even foreign government-owned corporations.

The court supposed that unlimited money would mean more free speech and debate. It hasn’t worked out that way. As David Trahan, a logger, former state senator in Maine, and leader of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine said after a $200 million Senate election in that state, “We’re under an avalanche. No one can hear us, and we can’t hear each other.” In Wyoming and Wisconsin, Republican state representatives Andrew Byron and Donna Rozar say: “The unrelenting flow of money into our elections is threatening the conservative values we hold dear, among which are local control and representative self-government.”

The court is not likely to correct its mistake in time, but “constitutional populism” can and will. After all, seven of the 27 previous amendments reversed Supreme Court decisions in favor of rights, powers, and checks and balances in our Constitution that Americans concluded would better serve freedom and self-government.

American Promise, the organization I lead, has proposed the For Our Freedom Amendment. This amendment returns power to the people, the states, and Congress to enact even-handed anti-corruption laws. The For Our Freedom Amendment secures the First Amendment as it was intended – to protect all American voices and ideas – and ends the unbalanced power of the elite donor class of each party.

Amending the Constitution is not easy, but the method to do it is clear. It requires national consensus, a â?? vote in Congress, and ratification in ¾ of the States – the same way all previous 27 amendments were added to the Constitution.

The national consensus exists. At the top of Americans’ priorities for the new Congress and president is “reducing the influence of money in politics,” behind only “strengthening the economy” and “defending against terrorism.” Seventy-seven percent of Americans support the For Our Freedom Amendment.

Twenty-two states have taken formal action to declare they are “ready to ratify” the amendment and want Congress to move on it. Millions of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike – have volunteered and voted for ready-to-ratify state ballot initiatives (the most recent: an 86% yes vote in Maine). In 2024, more than 550 candidates, Republicans and Democrats, pledged support for the For Our Freedom Amendment.

Constitutional amendments happen during times of crisis and in brief, decade-long “amendment eras” that recur about every half century. This is constitutional populism. In the last amendment era, from 1960 to 1971, Americans ratified four constitutional amendments. We’re in another amendment era now, if we seize the opportunity.