This piece originally appeared in the Daily Caller on July 2, 2025.

During his recent Joe Rogan Experience appearance, Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said that, regardless of partisan affiliation, “I don’t think people can disagree that we have a corrupt campaign finance system.”

Well, I do.

Like too many hysterical elected officials, Sanders claims that Citizens United was “probably the worst decision that the Supreme Court has ever made.”

Really?

Dred Scott ruled that descendants of slaves were not U.S. citizens. Plessy v. Ferguson legalized racial segregation under the “separate but equal doctrine.” Buck v. Bell held that the forced sterilization of people deemed “unfit” was perfectly legal. Korematsu v. United States upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. More recently, Kelo v. City of New London held that governments may seize private homes and businesses for the benefit of private developers under the guise of “economic development.”

But, to Sanders, a ruling that protects the free political speech rights of all Americans, which allows minority views to compete with institutionalized power, is somehow the Court’s worst decision.

Railing against Citizens United is the ultimate act of virtue signaling. It’s an intellectually lazy tactic devoid of meaning but aimed at broadcasting anti-elite sentiment. Ironically, though, the ruling is one of the most populist Supreme Court decisions in history. But to understand the ruling, you can’t listen to an ideologue like Sanders who twists the facts.

The reality is that Citizens United struck down a federal law that prohibited a nonprofit corporation from showing a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton shortly before the first round of Democratic primaries.

Yet the same law granted corporate media unlimited power to speak freely about candidates and elections — and even coordinate messaging with candidates or parties. However, if an everyday American wanted to form a nonprofit corporation with others and occasionally encourage other Americans to vote for or against a candidate, that was illegal.

The March 24, 2009, Supreme Court oral argument highlighted the absurdity of the prohibition when an incredulous Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether the government could ban “a 500-page book” published by a corporation if it even contained one line advocating the election of a candidate.

Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart replied, “That’s correct,” a few interchanges later, further explaining, “Yes, [the government’s] position would be that [any] corporation could be required to use PAC funds rather than general treasury funds.”

“And if they didn’t, you could ban it?” the Chief Justice made crystal clear.

“If they didn’t, we could prohibit the publication of the book,” Stewart agreed.

Bernie Sanders is siding with the book banners. A desire to overrule Citizens United is to support the establishment politicians who want to silence dissent while the government and the media have complete freedom to speak.

Sanders’ argument also overlooks the critical fact that money does not buy elections. If it did, Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump in 2016, when she outspent him 3 to 1, or Andrew Cuomo would have won the New York City Democratic primary last month.

Money buys an opportunity for people to hear a message. Voters have minds of their own, and they decide whether they agree or disagree with what they hear. Sanders takes away agency from voters by conflating hearing messages with being persuaded.

Far from handing power to billionaires, as Sanders claims, Citizens United unleashed rapid political diversification. Small-dollar donors are more coveted than ever. Donald Trump raised more money from donors who gave less than $200 than any candidate in history. Sanders himself rose to national prominence after the ruling.

Citizens United empowers ordinary people to join groups to advocate for issues and candidates they care about, allowing them to challenge the status quo. The decision has increased political competition and allowed more voices to be heard.

It’s also worth noting that much of Sanders’ Citizens United criticism was rooted in his dislike of Elon Musk’s political spending in support of Trump. During the podcast, Rogan was quick to remind Sanders that Democrats spend independently, too.

But Sanders should know that it was Buckley v. Valeo, not Citizens United, that first established that independent expenditures by individual citizens could not be limited. And it was SpeechNow v. FEC, not Citizens United, that created the vehicle for Musk’s spending — the super PAC, which allowed citizens to pool their funds and speak. Citizens United affirmed the First Amendment rights of corporations and unions to speak.

The Supreme Court has spoken time and time again — political speech is protected by the First Amendment. Senator Sanders swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. If he takes that oath seriously, he shouldn’t use an appearance on the biggest podcast in the world to advocate for government censorship. He should be cheering for the Supreme Court decision that allows David to take on Goliath.