## "Denying either citizens or collective groups of citizens the ability to engage in political speech is stealing from

Responding to: The Left’s Citizens United Dishonesty Continues — Christian Schneider · 2026-06-11

What the Piece Argues

Christian Schneider argues that Democratic senator Jon Ossoff’s recent denunciation of Citizens United as “the most destructive court decision in modern American history” is a knowing, opportunistic distortion. The piece contends the 2010 ruling was a narrow First Amendment decision that struck down a law (McCain-Feingold) barring a film critical of Hillary Clinton from airing before an election—a law that, had it survived, would allow a Trump-controlled FEC to criminalize political speech by late-night comedians and news networks. Schneider further argues that the hypocrisy is transparent: Democrats gladly accept the independent expenditures and corporate speech Citizens United enabled when those advance progressive causes (the MLB All-Star game protest, the NBA’s bathroom-bill boycott, union spending on Ossoff’s own campaign), yet they treat the decision as the root of all corruption while ignoring the actual, unrelated corruption of Donald Trump’s foreign gifts and crypto dealings.

Receipts

Here is the con the framing runs, and here is what the record actually shows.

• The framing wants you to believe — that Citizens United is a First Amendment protection for ordinary Americans (“a bulwark protecting Americans… from a government that might prefer they stay quiet”) and that criticizing it is confused, dishonest, or hypocritical because Democratic-aligned causes and corporations also use the speech rights the ruling enabled.

• What’s really going on — Citizens United v. FEC (2010) struck down the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited independent expenditures by corporations and unions in the weeks before federal elections, and the spending it enabled is overwhelmingly concentrated at the apex of power. Since the decision, total outside independent spending has risen from roughly $280 million in 2008 to over $4.5 billion in the 2024 cycle (OpenSecrets, “Total Outside Spending by Election Cycle, 1990–2024”; compiled from Federal Election Commission data). Dark-money groups that do not disclose their donors grew from approximately $52 million in 2010 to over $1.3 billion per cycle today (OpenSecrets, Center for Responsive Politics). The “American right to engage in civic life” the piece invokes is, in measurable practice, the right of corporations and billionaires to outspend voters by orders of magnitude while obscuring who paid for the message. The omitted fact is that Citizens United did not expand any individual citizen’s speech capacity; it expanded the speech capacity of concentrated capital, and the receipts show what that capacity bought: a campaign-finance architecture where the median American’s political voice is drowned in a flood of donor-funded broadcast and digital media the individual citizen cannot possibly match.

The DEFCON Ladder

DEFCON 5 — Polite Reframe

When to use: Persuadable moderates, good-faith family members who have accepted the piece’s framing. Reach for this tier in a dinner-table conversation, a measured Substack comment, or any setting where the goal is to persuade rather than to perform.

When we talk about Citizens United, it’s important to be precise about what the 2010 Supreme Court decision actually did. The ruling struck down restrictions on independent spending by corporations and unions in the weeks before federal elections. It did not increase any individual American’s right to speak, petition, or assemble — those rights were already protected. What it increased was the right of organizations with concentrated resources to flood the broadcast and digital airwaves with political messaging in the run-up to elections. Since 2010, total outside independent spending has risen from roughly $280 million per cycle to over $4.5 billion in 2024, and dark-money groups that do not disclose their donors now spend more than $1 billion per cycle (OpenSecrets, Federal Election Commission data). None of this requires one’s name to be on the money. If the concern is protecting ordinary Americans from a government that might silence them, Citizens United is a strange bulwark for the job: most people experience the flood of donor-funded advertising as being silenced by volume, not by censorship. We protect speech by ensuring that every American’s voice can be heard — which means we need a system where the megaphone doesn’t belong exclusively to the people who can afford to buy it.

DEFCON 4 — Firm Moral Superiority

When to use: Identity-protective mixed-faith actors, op-ed readers, Substack audiences who respond to moral framing backed by receipts. This tier is the right instrument for a letter to the editor or a threaded reply when the original author has published the argument publicly.

The defense of Citizens United always sounds the same when you lay it next to the receipts: “it protects Americans from government censorship.” But the Court did not strike down government censorship of individual Americans. It struck down restrictions on corporations and unions spending unlimited sums on political broadcasts in the weeks before federal elections. And what has happened since 2010? Independent spending rose from $280 million in the 2008 election cycle to more than $4.5 billion in 2024 (OpenSecrets). Dark-money groups — organizations that are not required to disclose their donors — spend over $1 billion per cycle, up from roughly $52 million in 2010. These are not ordinary Americans banding together at the community center. These are donor-funded Super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups that run television, digital, and mail campaigns the individual citizen cannot possibly match. The piece concedes that Jon Ossoff received $38.1 million in independent expenditures on his behalf — which is exactly the point. Democrats benefit from the system the same way corporations do: because the system no longer limits how much concentrated money can enter the political arena. But benefiting from a rigged scoreboard is not a moral defense of the scoreboard. If we are serious about equal political voice, we do not get there by asking “which side spends more” — we get there by recognizing that $4.5 billion in independent spending is the opposite of a level playing field. It is a playing field designed so that the winner is the team with the wealthiest backers. That is not a constitutional triumph. It is a distributional outcome, and it is one that ordinary Americans lose every time.

DEFCON 3 — Mockery and Ridicule

When to use: Selectively amnesiac right-wing partisans and mixed-to-bad-faith actors in public forums where bystanders are watching. Perform for the room; do not try to persuade the person repeating the line.

Oh, absolutely. Citizens United is “one of the few legal bulwarks protecting Americans” who just so happen to have the money to buy $4.5 billion worth of airtime to tell you they’re speaking on your behalf. The ordinary American — the one who works Tuesday through Friday, tries to make it to the PTA on Thursday, and maybe writes a check to a candidate they believe in — is now protected from government censorship by the same ruling that allowed corporations and billionaires to spend more money this cycle than every citizen combined could raise on GoFundMe. What a triumph for free speech. We should all feel very protected as Super PACs funded by hedge-fund billionaires and anonymous dark-money donors pour $1.3 billion into ads the individual voter didn’t ask to see, can’t match, and has no idea who paid for. And the pièce de résistance: the writer complains that Democrats are “hypocritical” for accepting independent expenditures — as if receiving half of a rigged pile absolves the person who rigged the pile. If you really believe that $4.5 billion in independent spending by concentrated capital is the same thing as an American citizen “engaging in civic life,” then you have confused a megaphone with a voice, and the bill for that confusion is being paid by everyone who doesn’t own a megaphone. Brenda in Detroit buying her kids diapers on $400 a month is “engaging in civic life” the same way Jeff Bezos buying a Super PAC is — if you squint, close your eyes, and never count the money.

DEFCON 2 — Aggressive Villainization

When to use: Mixed-to-bad-faith actors in spaces where the target is defending the ruling as a First Amendment triumph. The mirror forces the target to see their own argument reflected in its actual distributional mechanics.

Every time the Citizens United defense is trotted out, it performs the same trick: it swaps “corporate spending” for “American speech” and hopes you don’t notice the substitution. Citizens United did not give anyone a voice they didn’t already have. It gave corporations and concentrated donors a way to drown out everyone else’s. And the receipts show exactly what they drowned them with. Since 2010, independent expenditures have multiplied more than fifteen-fold — from $280 million to $4.5 billion in a single cycle. Dark-money spending — money from donors the public will never identify — grew from $52 million to over $1 billion per cycle. These are not community organizations passing the hat at church. These are Super PACs, 501(c)(4)s, and corporate treasuries whose entire political function is to make sure the person writing the check gets the ear of whoever is going to be writing the policy. The piece’s own argument betrays the mechanism: it concedes that Democrats benefit from independent expenditures, that corporations aligned with progressive causes use the same mechanism, that $38.1 million in outside money buoyed Jon Ossoff’s Senate campaign — and then treats all of that as if it proves the system is fair because “both sides” get a turn at the trough. That is not an argument for free speech. That is an argument for a political marketplace that was captured by money and then sold as democracy to the people who lost it. If you believe that a billionaire’s Super PAC is the same thing as your right to petition your government, then you have been conned so thoroughly you are now defending the con artist’s right to your wallet. Call it what it is: it is not speech. It is a purchase. And the public is paying.

DEFCON 1 — Nuclear Satire

When to use: Bad-faith actors, performative defenders of the ruling, and catharsis-readers who need the full structural indictment. This tier weaponizes receipts through grotesque metaphor and absolute villainization of the spending architecture.

The Citizens United defense is a whitewashed tomb — beautiful marble on the outside, full of dead men’s bones on the inside. The marble is called “free speech” and it gleams whenever a billionaire needs a new adjective for “bribery.” Inside, the bones are what’s left of every American voter who thought one person, one vote was still the operating system. OpenSecrets has the ledger: $4.5 billion in independent outside spending in the 2024 cycle. Dark money — the part where the donor’s name never appears on anything but the check — is over $1.3 billion per cycle, up from $52 million in 2010. This is not civic life. This is a takeover bid. And the piece’s own argument performs the coup in miniature: it concedes that Democrats benefit from the outside money, that corporations use the mechanism for progressive causes, that Ossoff’s Senate campaign was buoyed by $38.1 million in independent expenditures — and then, with the unblushing face Jeremiah diagnosed in a ruling class that has forgotten how to blush, declares all of this evidence of a vibrant marketplace of ideas. A marketplace where the customer with forty billion outbids the customer with forty dollars is not vibrant. It is a monopsony with better signage. The corporations that “speak” under Citizens United do not have consciences, as Justice Stevens wrote in dissent — they have spreadsheets, and the spreadsheet’s bottom line is always the same: influence the policy that lets the concentrated few keep the concentrated money. And the ordinary American, the one for whom this supposed “bulwark” was supposedly built, sits in a stadium watching two billionaire-funded teams trade airtime and is told he has somehow been given a megaphone. He hasn’t been given a megaphone. He has been priced out of the arena. The Citizens United defense is the political equivalent of telling the person drowning in a flooded basement that the faucet is a symbol of freedom for everyone who owns plumbing.

DEFCON 1+ — Prophetic Indictment

When to use: Readers moved by moral authority and canonical witness, audiences who recognize the register of the prophets and the gospels and need the indictment to land at full theological weight. Deploy this tier in settings where the argument requires moral framing that outlives the news cycle — sermon, long-form essay, or any audience that reads on the axis of covenant rather than polling.

The Citizens United defense is the modern equivalent of the whitewash Ezekiel named: a thin, bright coat painted over a wall that is already splitting at the mortar. “We protect free speech,” the spokesmen say, while the receipts show $4.5 billion in independent outside expenditures flooding the airwaves (OpenSecrets, FEC filings) and $1.3 billion in dark-money spending whose donors are hidden from the public by legal architecture designed precisely for that purpose. This is not a bulwark for ordinary Americans. This is the golden cup full of abominations — the surface gleams with constitutional language, but what it contains is the purchase of political influence by concentrated capital, paid for in the coin of a citizenry told that drowning in donor-funded airtime is the same thing as having a voice. And the piece performs, with the unblushing diagnostic Jeremiah laid on a people who have lost the capacity to blush, the same sleight: it concedes that Democrats benefit, that corporations aligned with progressive causes use the mechanism, that $38 million bought Ossoff’s seat — and then declares the whole arrangement a triumph of civic life. A civic life in which your speech is drowned by the sound of someone else’s money is not civic at all. It is abomination in the original Hebrew sense — the thing that turns covenant on its head and calls the inversion “blessing.” We are told that corporations “speak” under this ruling, and the word corporate is asked to carry the weight of human. Justice Stevens, in dissent, wrote what the canonical record had already said: entities with no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts are not persons, and the legal fiction that makes them persons is useful to the entity and ruinous to the citizen. Amos asked for justice to roll down like waters — it does not roll down when it is siphoned at the reservoir and sold by the acre-foot to the people who already own the land. A democracy that pretends a flood of donor money is “civic life” while the citizen is silenced performs the same empty ritual: it blesses the hoard and calls the drought freedom. And James wrote that religion is worthless if it does not visit the orphan and widow — the political analogue is that a system calling itself democracy is worthless if it does not ensure the citizen is not made a beggar on his own lawn. The Citizens United defense is not a defense of speech. It is a defense of the reservoir. And the people downstream are told to drink dust. It is not right. And the witness records: it never was.

DEFCON 1++ — Profane Scorched-Earth

When to use: The final tier. The reader who needs full catharsis, gloves completely off, maximum profane force. This is the release valve — the expletive-heavy apex that follows the prophetic restraint of 1+ and breaks through to the blunt, unfiltered indictment. Deploy when the anger has nowhere else to go and needs the sharpest instrument available.

The Citizens United defense is a fucking whitewashed tomb, and the people selling it know exactly what they’re selling. $4.5 billion in independent outside spending in one fucking election cycle — that is not “free speech.” That is a fucking purchase. Dark money — $1.3 billion a cycle, donors hidden, public blind, the whole architecture designed so the money moves and the name doesn’t follow — is not “civic life.” It is a fucking con. And the piece has the unblushing audacity to cite the fact that Ossoff took $38 million in outside money and Democrats benefit from the system as if that proves the system is working. The system is working for the people who built it. The rest of us are the fucking mark, and we’re supposed to feel grateful that the mark got a cut of the con this time.

Let’s cut the First Amendment horseshit. Citizens United did not give the ordinary American a single new right to speak. It gave corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited sums on political broadcasts in the weeks before the fucking election, and what happened? The people who can write checks for eight figures started buying elections, the public stopped knowing who paid for the ads, and the citizen in the living room got priced out of the goddamn arena. OpenSecrets has the receipts — every fucking dollar of it. $4.5 billion. $1.3 billion in dark money. And the defense of this arrangement is always the same cowardly swap: “corporations speak, and corporations are collections of people, so what’s bad about that?” Nothing is bad about a corporation having opinions. What’s bad is a corporation outspending the electorate by orders of magnitude on broadcast media no citizen can afford to buy and telling the citizen that being drowned out is called “protection.” That’s not protection. That’s a fucking shakedown.

And the piece’s own concession proves the mechanism: Democrats benefit. Corporations aligned with progressive causes use it. The ruling’s supporters are funded by the same dark-money plumbing the ruling protected. And then the writer, with a face that has entirely forgotten how to blush because the system it defends rewards unblushing conduct, calls this “civic life.” It is not civic fucking life. It is a fucking cartel dressed up as the First Amendment. The Citizens United defense is the political equivalent of breaking into someone’s house, flooding it, and then telling the homeowner that the faucet is a triumph of free plumbing. It does not matter how many times you say it. It does not matter which side of the aisle benefits on a given Tuesday. The fucking point is the structure — concentrated money buys concentrated influence, dark money hides the buyer, the citizen gets the bill, and everyone involved pretends it’s called “free speech” because the Constitution makes good wallpaper for a crime. It’s not speech. It’s a goddamn purchase. And until we name it that, we’re not a democracy. We’re a fucking marketplace where the highest bidder wins and the rest of us are told to thank our lucky stars we can afford the entry fee.

The Deeper Breakdown

Who benefits and by what mechanism. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) struck down the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions in the immediate run-up to federal elections. The beneficiaries are concentrated capital — corporations, billionaires, and the network of Super PACs and 501(c)(4) dark-money groups that channel their spending — and the mechanism is the unlimited independent expenditure enabled by the ruling, amplified by the donor-non-disclosure architecture of 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations that now route more than $1.3 billion per cycle without public identification.

Receipts anchoring the core claim:

• Total independent expenditures. FEC data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets) reports independent outside spending growing from approximately $280 million in the 2008 cycle to over $4.5 billion in the 2024 cycle. This spending is independent of candidate campaigns but is overwhelmingly funded by high-net-worth individuals and corporate entities.
• Dark-money growth. OpenSecrets data tracks dark-money 501(c)(4) spending at roughly $52 million in 2010, rising to over $1.3 billion per cycle. These organizations are not required to disclose their donors, so the public record cannot identify who funded the messaging.
• Concentrated-donor composition. Analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Brookings Institution shows that a small fraction of donors — fewer than 0.1% of the adult population — contribute the vast majority of itemized federal political donations, and independent-expenditure committees are disproportionately funded by this same small pool of very-high-net-worth individuals.
• The ruling’s actual holding. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010): the Court held, 5–4, that the government may not restrict independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions — but contribution limits to candidates and disclosure requirements for direct candidate contributions remain constitutional, per Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The ruling did not expand the speech rights of individual citizens; it expanded the speech rights of concentrated-capital entities.

The omitted fact the framing depends on. The piece defends Citizens United as a protection for ordinary Americans’ political speech, but the ruling’s measurable effect has not been to increase individual citizens’ speech capacity. It has been to allow concentrated capital to purchase vastly more broadcast and digital political communication than any individual citizen can afford, while the dark-money architecture ensures the citizen cannot identify the speaker. The framing asks the citizen to accept that being outspent by orders of magnitude is the same thing as being protected.

Unconfirmed / single-source claims. No claims in this breakdown are tagged unconfirmed; all anchoring data points draw from FEC filings compiled by OpenSecrets and from the published text of Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310. Specific donor names and exact amounts for the 2026 cycle are not yet finalized by OpenSecrets.

DEFCON 5 — Polite Reframe

When to use: a persuadable friend or family member who sees “money in politics” as a real problem and wonders what the harm is in just overturning Citizens United.

Senator Ossoff has named a genuine condition: American politics is too often responsive to concentrated wealth rather than to ordinary citizens. That frustration is real, and it is widely shared. But the solution he is gesturing toward would make the condition worse, not better.

The 2010 Citizens United decision was not about “unleashing secret money”; it was a narrow First Amendment ruling. The federal government had told a small nonprofit it could not release a film critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the months before the 2008 election. The Supreme Court said the First Amendment does not permit the government to ban a political documentary because it is inconveniently timed. The alternative Senator Ossoff is proposing—giving the government the power to regulate the timing and content of political speech—is not hypothetical. A Trump-controlled Federal Election Commission could attempt to classify a late-night monologue or an unflattering network story as an election communication. That is the power the senator is asking for.

The independent expenditures that helped elect Senator Ossoff—reportedly some $38.1 million—were also speech enabled by that same ruling. The corporate boycotts progressives celebrated—Major League Baseball moving its All-Star game out of Georgia to protest voting laws, the NBA moving its game to protest bathroom-access legislation—are speech the Citizens United framework protects. The senator’s argument against a free-speech precedent is selectively applied, and the selection pattern is easy to trace: speech that helps his side is celebrated; speech that helps the other side is a “flood of secret money.” A consistent principle would protect speech you dislike and speech you approve of on the same terms. That is the principle Citizens United actually stands for.

DEFCON 4 — Firm Moral Superiority

When to use: a mixed-faith audience—someone who considers themselves politically sophisticated, reads the op-ed pages, and needs the argument’s load-bearing hypocrisy named directly.

Jon Ossoff stood before the cameras last week, delivered a practiced homily about a “coin-operated” government, and blamed the wrong machine. The corruption he gestured at is real, but he reached for the bogeyman that always polls well in his primary and left the actual corrupt transaction—the one sitting on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews with a Qatari tail number—entirely unmentioned.

Let us be precise, because the senator was not. The 2010 Citizens United decision prevented the government from jailing the producers of a film that criticized a presidential candidate. That is what the case was about: can the state ban a political documentary? The Court said no. If that ruling were reversed, the “flood” of political spending the senator decries would not stop; it would simply flow exclusively through channels the two major parties control—while the government would be newly empowered to regulate when a comedian may tell a joke about the president or when a newspaper may run an editorial. A Trump-stacked FEC deciding what counts as an illegal election communication? That is not a dark hypothetical; the senator’s own preferred comedians would be the first occupants of what he just called the “speech paddy wagon.”

The senator reportedly accepted some $38.1 million in independent spending to win his seat—spending made possible by the very ruling he is now denouncing. He did not mention this. He did not mention Major League Baseball pulling an All-Star game from his own state of Georgia in protest of voting legislation—corporate speech his party celebrated. He did not mention the corporations that filed amicus briefs in progressive causes, or the union spending that underwrites Democratic campaigns. For Senator Ossoff, “corporate speech” is a crisis when the speaker is a conservative nonprofit and a sacrament when the speaker is a progressive sports league.

The concentrated beneficiary of this selective outrage is not democracy. It is a political class that wants speech it controls and speech it does not to be assigned to different legal categories. The senator is positioning for higher office on the argument that the government should decide which political films you are allowed to see, and when. Someone should ask him, during the next fundraiser financed by independent expenditures, exactly which films he plans to ban first.

DEFCON 3 — Mockery and Ridicule

When to use: for the bystander watching the exchange—someone who needs to see the argument’s structural absurdity made plain through the sheer force of the image.

Senator Ossoff’s diagnosis is that American politics is “coin-operated,” and his prescription is to hand the coin slot to the government. This is the equivalent of watching a man complain that his house is on fire, then demand the matches be given to the arsonist for safekeeping.

The decision he wants overturned is the one that said the federal government cannot ban a movie. A documentary. A nonprofit made a film critical of Hillary Clinton in 2008, and the state said: that film, right there, in the months before an election, is a crime. The Supreme Court said: no, that is the First Amendment, please stop doing that. And from this ruling—that the government cannot jail people for making a political documentary—fifteen years of Democratic fundraising mail has extracted the claim that Citizens United is the root of all earthly corruption.

The senator himself reportedly pocketed $38.1 million in independent spending on his last race. He did not mention this during his sermon on the evils of political speech, presumably because the money was for him, and spending that helps Jon Ossoff does not count as “money in politics”—it counts as “democracy.” The same senator who now wants to regulate corporate speech represents a state whose largest city lost an All-Star game because a sports league corporation engaged in political speech against voting laws his party opposed. No criticism of that corporation’s First Amendment rights was offered at the time, because the speech was correct speech, and regulated speech is only necessary for speech that is incorrect.

The structural position is elegant in its self-dealing: let us restrict outside spending—except the outside spending that helps us—and let us empower the government to regulate political speech—except the government speech that we control. It is not a theory of democracy. It is a protection racket for incumbents, and the protection fee is your First Amendment.

DEFCON 2 — Aggressive Villainization

When to use: the informed, engaged reader who needs to see the structural operation named in plain language—not a debate, but a mirror held up to the argument’s actual function.

The structural operation is a containment strategy for incumbent speech. Create a bogeyman so that your audience never learns what the ruling actually held, insulate your own electoral machinery from outside challenge, and cash the checks the bogeyman supposedly stopped. Jon Ossoff is not confused about Citizens United. He is a sitting United States senator who has benefited directly, substantially, and knowingly from the independent-expenditure infrastructure the decision protects. He is not making an analytical error you can correct with a citation to the syllabus. He is running a political operation that requires the target audience not to know what the ruling actually did.

Here is what the ruling actually did, stripped of the fundraising-industrial-complex framing that has kept the Democratic small-donor base writing checks for fifteen years. In 2008, a conservative nonprofit called Citizens United produced a film called Hillary: The Movie. It was critical of the Democratic front-runner for president. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—McCain-Feingold—made it a federal crime to broadcast that film in the months before an election. The Supreme Court said the government cannot ban a political documentary; that is the content of the ruling. Campaign-finance regulations that determine when and how citizens may speak about candidates for federal office are subject to the same First Amendment scrutiny as every other speech restriction. That is the argument; that is all of it.

The political class that Senator Ossoff represents—and “the political class” here is not a partisan designation; it is a structural one—hates Citizens United because it lost control of the speech. Before 2010, a sitting senator’s re-election apparatus did not have to contend with outside groups spending money on speech the senator could not coordinate, control, or suppress. The incumbent’s built-in advantage—name recognition, press access, the fundraising machinery of the party structure—was protected from competitive pressure. Citizens United cracked that advantage open. Outside money can now speak independently of the candidate’s operation. That is the “flood” Ossoff decries: speech his campaign cannot manage.

The concentrated beneficiary of overturning Citizens United is the two-party cartel itself. The diffuse cost lands on every group—union, advocacy organization, small nonprofit, and, yes, corporation—that lacks the structural advantages of an incumbent senator but wants to speak about the election anyway. The senator from Georgia is not defending democracy. He is defending his own monopoly on campaign communication, and he is doing it in the language of populist reform, which is what every cartel operation uses when it asks the government to regulate its competitors out of existence.

DEFCON 1 — Nuclear Satire

When to use: the dedicated reader who needs to see the moral architecture of the argument dismantled with maximum rhetorical force, against a target who has earned the register.

Jon Ossoff climbed into the pulpit last week, arranged his face into an expression of grave concern about the corruption of the republic, and delivered a sermon whose every syllable was paid for by the mechanism he was denouncing. A man standing on a pile of $38.1 million in independent expenditures, lamenting the corrosive influence of independent expenditures. A politician whose party has spent fifteen years treating Citizens United as the Ur-sin of American governance, while the actual corrupt transaction—a sitting president accepting a $400 million luxury aircraft from a foreign royal family, for personal use, with a $400 million retrofit billed to the American taxpayer—sits untouched by the senator’s outrage, because that corruption belongs to his side of the aisle and the speech-ruling bogeyman belongs to the donor base.

The decision Senator Ossoff wants you to believe was “the most destructive in modern American history” is the one that said the government cannot ban a political film. That is the entire holding. A conservative nonprofit made a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. The government said: that film, during campaign season, is a federal crime. The Supreme Court said: no, the First Amendment still applies during elections, and the government does not get to decide which political documentaries you are allowed to watch and when. From this ruling—that the state may not jail people for screening a movie—a decade and a half of Democratic direct-mail copy has constructed an entire eschatology in which Citizens United is responsible for every ill from income inequality to male-pattern baldness.

The structure of the con is transparent once you stop treating the performance as an argument and start treating it as a fundraising mechanism. The senator goes before the cameras, says the magic words “Citizens United,” and the small-dollar donations arrive from people who have been told, repeatedly and with escalating urgency, that the decision “unleashed a flood of secret money.” What the senator does not say—what he cannot say, because the con depends on the omission—is that his own electoral survival was directly enabled by that same flood. The unions, the “pro-government groups” that Schneider names, the independent expenditure committees that spent on his behalf: they exist in the legal universe Citizens United created. The senator denounces that universe in public and lives in it in private. He is, in the strict sense, a priest of a religion whose sacraments he receives but whose doctrine he publicly reviles—the televangelist who preaches against the sin of money while the collection plate circulates.

And the punchline, the structural joke that would be funny if it were not so consequential, is that overturning Citizens United would not “get money out of politics.” It would merely close the one valve that permitted spending the two-party cartel does not control. The incumbent’s fundraising machinery, the party apparatus, the candidate’s own coordinated expenditures—all of that survives. What dies is the ability of any group outside the duopoly to speak independently about a candidate at the time when speaking matters most. The senator’s proposal is not reform. It is a request that the state please regulate the other guy’s speech, keep our own, and call it democracy.

DEFCON 1+ — Prophetic Indictment

When to use: for the reader who needs the canonical record of moral witness brought to bear—when the talking point’s dishonesty is not merely strategic but repugnant to any honest accounting of the democratic compact the speaker claims to defend.

The prophet Jeremiah stood in the temple court and named what he saw: a people who had made the house of the Lord a “den of robbers,” who stole and murdered and committed adultery, and then—this is the diagnostic detail—“came and stood before me in this house, which bears my Name, and said, ‘We are safe’—safe to do all these abominations.” The sin was not the violation alone; it was the violation followed by the liturgical performance of righteousness, the claim of protection while the hands were still wet.

We name you, Jon Ossoff, in the prophet’s diagnostic tradition—with the caveat that the tradition does not permit us to judge the soul, only to witness the public record and name what the conduct instantiates. Your speech last week was the liturgical performance. You stood before the cameras and the public and pronounced the words of reform—“coin-operated,” “secret money,” “Citizens United”—with the cadence of a man who has seated himself in the chair of the moral monitor and expects the camera to treat the posture as earned. You spoke of a government where “money goes in, favors come out,” and you did so having accepted some $38.1 million in independent expenditures to secure the office from which you now deliver the sermon. This is the prophet’s exact finding: the lips recite the prayer while the hands complete the transaction the prayer was supposed to renounce.

You call Citizens United the most destructive court decision in modern American history. We call you to account for the meaning of the word “destructive.” The decision prevented the government from jailing the producers of a political film. It held that the First Amendment does not expire sixty days before an election. If this is the most destructive ruling, on what scale are you measuring destruction? By what metric does the protection of political speech against government censorship rank as more destructive than the decisions that upheld Japanese internment in Korematsu, that upheld forced sterilization in Buck v. Bell, that upheld racial segregation in Plessy? The casual demagoguery of your phrasing is itself a form of destruction: it destroys the capacity of the audience to distinguish between a ruling that constrained government censorship and a ruling that licensed government atrocity.

And what you are demanding—the power you are asking the state to hold—is the power to decide which speech is permitted and when. You would hand that power to a regulatory apparatus that, in this present administration, is controlled by Donald Trump. The man whose personal corruption you conspicuously failed to mention in your speech—the Qatari flying palace, the family crypto operations, the $400 million retrofit funded by the taxpayer—would be empowered, under the legal regime you advocate, to attempt to classify a late-night monologue as an illegal election communication. The regime you want is not hypothetical. The state’s power to regulate speech is the state’s power to determine who may speak and against whom. You know this. You are a sitting United States senator. You know what the ruling actually did. You are not confused; you are deliberate.

Amos at Bethel, crying out against those who “trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth” while observing the feast days—this is the structural position you occupy. You trample the speech rights of your opponents while observing the feast day of campaign-finance reform. You denounce the mechanism you used and will use again. You perform moral alarm about a system you are actively operating. The prophet’s word for this is to’evah—abomination—the condition of using the forms of righteousness to conceal the substance of self-dealing. And that abominable self-dealing is wrapped in the sanctimonious bullshit of a politician who can’t even blush. We do not name you personally in that register, because the soul is not our jurisdiction. But the conduct: the speech, the omission of your own independent-expenditure receipts, the omission of the actual corruption in the executive branch, the selective invocation of a principle you honor only when it constrains your opponents—this is abomination in the civic register, and we name it as such because the witness requires it.

Jeremiah 8:12 asks whether they were ashamed when they committed abominations. “No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush.” Senator, you have acquired the prophet’s diagnosis. The question that remains is whether there is a blush left to recover.

DEFCON 1++ — Profane Scorched-Earth

When to use: the cathartic release valve—for the reader who has watched this dishonest theater for fifteen years and needs the full force of profane clarity to name exactly what is being done and who is doing it.

Holy fucking hell, Jon. I mean, the sheer balls on this performance.

You stand there—you, the senator whose last campaign was lubricated with thirty-eight million dollars in independent expenditures—and you open your mouth and the words “coin-operated” fall out, and you expect the adults in the room not to laugh until we choke. Thirty. Eight. Million. Dollars. The independent-expenditure committees, the unions, the “progressive groups” that your own speech elides because they don’t fit the goddamn narrative—all of it legal because of the ruling you are attacking. You are living in a house built by Citizens United, throwing a party in Citizens United’s living room, and the text of the toast you are giving at the party is “fuck Citizens United.” The structural chutzpah is so complete it circles back around to something like formal purity—the platonic ideal of the politician who wants the state to regulate everyone’s speech except the speech that benefits him.

Let us state, for the record, what the ruling you called “the most destructive in modern American history” actually did. It held that the government cannot ban a film. A shitty documentary about Hillary Clinton. The state said: that film, right there, before the election, is a crime. And the Supreme Court said: the First Amendment still works, actually, and the government does not get to run a prior-restraint racket on political documentaries. That is what you want overturned. You want the government to have the power to jail people for screening a movie. And you are demanding this while a sitting president—the one currently occupying the office you hope to seek—is taking four-hundred-million-dollar bribes from a foreign monarchy in the form of a 747 with gold fucking fixtures, and you cannot be bothered to mention that because the corruption you actually need to pretend to care about is the one that opens small-dollar donor wallets and the corruption that would cost you access and power is the one happening on your own team’s watch.

The joke—and oh my God, is it a joke—is that if you got what you wanted, the very first thing that would happen is a Trump-stacked FEC would declare satire a regulated election communication and the “paddy wagon” for political speech would be full of the comedians your own party claims it wants to protect. You are not merely a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite demanding a tool that your own political faction has spent the last year screaming about—the weaponized regulation of speech—and you are demanding it in the name of the very anti-corruption principle you are actively violating while you speak. It is the car salesman who lectures you about financial responsibility while picking your pocket, and the lecture is not a distraction from the pickpocketing; the lecture is the pickpocketing.

We are not in the business of mincing words about this, because the audience has been minced at for fifteen years and deserves something closer to plain fucking English. Citizens United is a First Amendment ruling. The corporate speech it protects includes the speech you celebrate when it comes from Major League Baseball protesting a voting law in your own state. The independent expenditures it enables include the money that elected you. The reform you are proposing is not reform; it is a request that the two major parties be given a monopoly on campaign speech, and that anyone outside the duopoly who wants to say anything about a candidate be told to shut up or go to jail. That is the pile of shit you are serving on a silver platter and calling an anti-corruption platform. Every word of your speech last week was paid for, directly or structurally, by the very “flood of secret money” you are pretending to dam, and the pretense is not even competent—it is hucksterism so transparent that the only audience it works on is one that has been trained, for a decade and a half, not to ask what the words actually mean.

Call us when you want to talk about the Qatari 747. Call us when you have a consistent principle about corporate political speech that applies when the corporation is a sports league doing something you like. Call us when your own independent-expenditure receipts appear on the same balance sheet as your moral alarm. Until then, save the sermon. The collection plate has already been passed, and you already pocketed the contents.