Conservative Op-Ed Argues Citizens United Overrides State Campaign Finance Laws

A federalism argument against the 2010 Supreme Court ruling reframes the campaign finance debate as a states' rights issue, a framing that could reshape how both parties approach reform legislation.

A Washington Examiner opinion piece published October 11, 2026 argues that the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling contradicts the conservative principle of state sovereignty by preempting state-level campaign finance restrictions. The op-ed contends that states such as Utah and Montana should retain the authority to set their own rules on political spending, independent of the federal framework established by the ruling.

The Citizens United decision, issued by the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, held in a 5-4 vote that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, and labor unions. The ruling struck down key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as McCain-Feingold (Public Law 107-155).

The legal consequence of Citizens United extended beyond federal elections. State laws that imposed comparable restrictions on corporate independent expenditures were subsequently challenged and, in many cases, invalidated. The most direct example is American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, 567 U.S. 516 (2012), in which the Supreme Court summarily reversed a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding that state's 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, citing Citizens United as controlling precedent.

Montana's Corrupt Practices Act had been in place for a century before it was nullified. The state law had been enacted following documented corruption tied to copper mining industry political spending, according to the Montana Supreme Court's record in the Bullock case. The federal preemption of that law is the clearest existing example of Citizens United's effect on state authority over campaign finance.

The Washington Examiner piece draws on this federalism tension to make a case that conservatives who support state authority in areas such as education, land use, energy, and healthcare are applying an inconsistent standard when they defend Citizens United's national preemptive effect.

Campaign finance law scholars have documented the downstream regulatory impact. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 24 states had laws on the books prior to 2010 that restricted corporate political spending in ways that became legally untenable after Citizens United and subsequent lower court rulings applying its logic.

In Congress, legislative responses to Citizens United have been introduced in every session since 2010. The DISCLOSE Act, which would require organizations spending money in elections to publicly identify their donors, has been introduced repeatedly in both the House and Senate. The most recent version, S. 1585, was introduced in the 119th Congress. It has not advanced to a floor vote in the Senate, where it has faced procedural obstacles. Congressional voting records on cloture motions for the DISCLOSE Act are available through the Senate's official roll call archive at senate.gov.

The states' rights framing in the Washington Examiner op-ed represents a notable rhetorical shift. Most prominent conservative defenses of Citizens United have rested on First Amendment free speech grounds, as reflected in the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The federalism critique, by contrast, invites a coalition that could include conservatives skeptical of concentrated federal power alongside liberals who have long sought campaign finance reform on transparency and anti-corruption grounds.

Federal Election Commission data, available at fec.gov, shows that outside spending by Super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations has grown substantially in each presidential and midterm election cycle since 2010. Total outside spending in federal elections reached approximately 3.4 billion dollars in the 2020 cycle, according to FEC summary data. Comparable figures for the 2024 cycle are available in FEC filings but have not been fully audited as of publication.

What remains unknown is whether the federalism argument articulated in the Washington Examiner op-ed will generate formal legislative proposals. No bill text has been introduced in the current Congress that specifically frames Citizens United reform as a states' rights measure. The Congressional Record, available at congress.gov, would reflect any such introduction. Committee hearing transcripts and floor statements from members of the House Administration Committee and the Senate Rules and Administration Committee would be the primary public records to watch for movement on this issue.