The Citizens Rise initiative distinguishes itself from other efforts aimed at reducing the influence of big money in U.S. elections through its strategic approach and focus on state-level reforms. Here’s an analysis contrasting Citizens Rise with notable initiatives.
1. Federal Constitutional Amendments
Democracy for All Amendment (Sen. Jeanne Shaheen)
- Approach: Seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress and states to regulate campaign finance.
- Challenges: Requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states—a process that has proven politically unfeasible.
- Status: Despite repeated introductions, the amendment has not advanced significantly.
Citizens Rise Contrast
While the Democracy for All Amendment represents a principled response to Citizens United, constitutional amendments are historically the hardest path to reform. With no realistic path to securing two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of states in the foreseeable future, this strategy has effectively stalled for over a decade.
Citizens Rise takes a different approach by working within the system we have, not the one we wish for, focusing on state-level, court-resistant reforms that don’t require impossible federal thresholds or generational waiting periods.
2. Legislative Efforts to Regulate Super PACs
Abolish Super PACs Act (Rep. Pramila Jayapal)
- Approach: Proposes federal legislation to eliminate super PACs and restrict independent expenditures.
- Challenges: Faces significant legal hurdles due to existing Supreme Court precedents, particularly the Citizens United decision, which protects independent political expenditures under the First Amendment.
- Status: The bill has not gained substantial traction in Congress.
Citizens Rise Contrast
While abolishing Super PACs through federal legislation aligns with public frustration over big money, such efforts are constitutionally dead on arrival under the current Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. Even if passed by Congress, it would almost certainly be struck down in court based on existing precedents like Citizens United and SpeechNow.
Citizens Rise recognizes this legal ceiling and strategically bypasses it, using state-powered tools like voter incentives, public media access, and grassroots infrastructure that don’t require overturning Supreme Court decisions to be effective.
3. State-Level Legal Challenges
Maine’s Campaign Finance Law and Legal Challenge
- Approach: In 2024, Maine voters approved a law capping individual contributions to super PACs at $5,000.
- Legal Challenge: The law is being challenged in federal court by groups like Dinner Table Action, arguing it infringes on First Amendment rights.
- Objective: Proponents hope the case will prompt the Supreme Court to reconsider aspects of the Citizens United ruling.
Citizens Rise Contrast
While Maine’s approach invites legal challenges that could reach the U.S. Supreme Court and potentially reshape federal campaign finance jurisprudence, such outcomes are historically rare and face long odds with the current Court’s conservative majority. Even if heard, the Court is more likely to strike down Maine’s law than to revisit or reverse Citizens United.
In contrast, Citizens Rise focuses on building a grassroots movement that operates within the current legal framework, using proven state-level reforms, public incentives, and voter engagement to neutralize big money’s influence without relying on federal courts or congressional gridlock.
Summary Comparison
While the Democracy for All Amendment, federal legislation like the Abolish Super PACs Act, and legal challenges such as Maine’s $5,000 cap all represent genuine efforts to fight Big Money’s influence, each is built on high-risk, long-shot strategies. Constitutional amendments face insurmountable political barriers. Federal legislation runs headlong into Supreme Court precedents that have already defined unlimited independent spending as constitutionally protected speech. State-level legal challenges, like Maine’s, carry the slim hope of forcing the Court to reconsider—but are more likely to result in those laws being struck down.
Citizens Rise takes a different path—not waiting on Congress, not betting on the courts, and not asking for the impossible. Instead, it focuses on immediate, state-powered, Supreme Court-proof reforms that are already legal, already tested in parts of the country, and designed to scale across states within five years. It builds power from the ground up—where voters still have leverage—to systematically neutralize billionaire dominance without waiting on a broken federal system to fix itself.