Citizens United is probably the most misunderstood Supreme Court decision in modern times. Most people who want it overturned don't know what it actually held.

The case arose because the FEC banned a nonprofit organization (Citizens United) from distributing a political documentary about Hillary Clinton near an election. The government argued it had the power to ban political speech by organizations. During oral arguments, the government's lawyer admitted this power would extend to banning political books published by corporations.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the First Amendment protects political speech regardless of the speaker's corporate status. The ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting this position, arguing that the government shouldn't have the power to suppress political speech.

The ruling did not allow unlimited direct contributions to candidates — those limits still exist. It allowed independent expenditures on political speech — ads, films, books — by organizations. This includes not just for-profit corporations but unions, nonprofits, advocacy groups, the Sierra Club, the NRA, Planned Parenthood, and the New York Times (which is a corporation).

Here's the test: if you overturn Citizens United, the government could prohibit the New York Times from endorsing candidates, ban Michael Moore from releasing political documentaries near elections, prevent unions from running political ads, and stop the NAACP from publishing voter guides. All of these are 'corporate political speech.'

Election spending data also undermines the 'buying elections' narrative. In 2020, Democrats outspent Republicans significantly — Biden's campaign and allied groups spent about $1.6 billion versus Trump's $1.1 billion. Super PAC spending doesn't reliably predict election outcomes; many of the highest-spending candidates lose.

Free political speech is messy. But the alternative — giving the government the power to decide who can speak about politics — is far more dangerous to democracy than any campaign ad.