Editorial
The Other Side: The Strongest Arguments Against Our Positions
And our honest answers. Jump to: full editorial · references
In Brief
- “Citizens United protects free speech.” Even the ACLU defends it and opposes an amendment.
Our answer: the problem is unlimited scale, not speech. An amendment can be written narrowly to protect the press and individuals. - “Super PACs came from a different case.” Overruling Citizens United alone wouldn’t end them.
Our answer: true. We must undo the whole chain of decisions and pass strong disclosure laws now. - “Money doesn’t buy elections.” Studies find spending has a small effect on who wins.
Our answer: money buys access and decides who can run. Evidence suggests policy leans toward the wealthy when views differ. - “Nobody paid 70%, and the rich already pay most income taxes.”
Our answer: so close the loopholes. A high rate only works without shelters. - “Higher taxes hurt the economy.”
Our answer: 50 years of data from 18 rich countries show tax cuts for the rich raised inequality but not growth or jobs. - “Inequality is overstated.” Counting taxes, benefits, and Social Security shrinks the gap.
Our answer: these findings are disputed, and Social Security can’t buy political influence. Spendable wealth can. - “Tax cuts didn’t cause the debt.”
Our answer: many things did, but tax cuts were part of it.
The Editorial
This site argues that we can reclaim our government by overruling Citizens United and restoring highly progressive taxation. Thoughtful people disagree. Some are scholars, judges, and civil-liberties groups who share many of our values. If our case is right, it should hold up against their best arguments, not just their weakest. So here they are, stated as fairly as we can, followed by our responses.
Each numbered source [1] links to the reference list at the bottom of this page, so you can check the evidence yourself.
1. Overruling Citizens United
“It’s a free-speech decision.”
Citizens United v. FEC (2010) held that the government may not ban independent political spending by corporations, unions, and nonprofit groups [1]. The case itself involved a nonprofit group that wanted to air a documentary criticizing a presidential candidate. The American Civil Liberties Union, hardly a conservative group, sided with Citizens United and still opposes a constitutional amendment to reverse it, arguing that the cure is more speech and public financing, not less speech [3]. The amendment Congress voted on in 2014 would have given Congress and the states broad power to “regulate the raising and spending of money” in elections. Critics said that power could be used against unpopular groups and newspapers [4].
This is the strongest argument against us, and it deserves respect. But nobody is proposing to silence anyone. The issue is scale: when a handful of donors can spend without limit, ordinary voices get drowned out. Most other democracies limit election spending and still have a free press. An amendment can be written narrowly, protecting the press and individual speech while allowing reasonable limits on huge spending. Public financing, which the ACLU supports, is part of the answer too.
“Super PACs didn’t come from Citizens United.”
Unlimited super PACs were created by a different, lower-court case, SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010) [2]. Overruling Citizens United alone would not end them. Also, Citizens United upheld disclosure rules by an 8–1 vote [1], so much of the “dark money” problem could be fixed with stronger disclosure laws, without a constitutional amendment.
Fair point, and an important one. SpeechNow was built directly on Citizens United’s reasoning, so reversing that reasoning would undo both. But we should be precise: the goal is to undo the whole chain of decisions, and to pass strong disclosure laws now, since the Supreme Court has already said they are constitutional.
“Money doesn’t buy elections.”
Studies find that campaign spending has a surprisingly small effect on who wins. One well-known study of candidates who ran against the same opponent more than once found spending made little difference [5]. Another found that most campaign money comes from individuals, not special interests, and that donations show little link to how lawmakers vote [6].
Winning elections is only part of the story. Money also buys access and decides which candidates can afford to run at all. A major 2014 study found that when the preferences of the wealthy and of average citizens differ, policy tends to follow the wealthy [7]. That study has been challenged. Critics point out that the rich and the middle class agree on most issues [8], and the author has answered that agreement “by coincidence” is not real representation [9]. The debate is real, and we think the evidence still favors concern.
2. Restoring Highly Progressive Taxation
“Almost nobody actually paid 70%.”
The 70% top rate of 1981 applied only to income above a very high threshold, and wealthy people used legal shelters to avoid much of it. What they actually paid was far lower than the posted rate. Today the federal tax system is already progressive: the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the top 1% paid roughly 30% of their income in all federal taxes in 2021 [10], and IRS data show the top 1% paid about 46% of all federal income taxes while earning about 26% of income [11].
True, and it means the goal isn’t just a higher posted rate. It’s a higher rate with the loopholes closed. The income tax share figures leave out payroll taxes, which hit working people hardest, and they don’t account for unrealized gains that the very richest never pay tax on. Economists Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez estimate that a top rate of about 73% would raise the most revenue [13].
“Higher taxes hurt the economy.”
A widely cited study by Christina and David Romer (Christina Romer later chaired President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers) found that tax increases reduce economic output substantially, largely by discouraging investment [12]. People also change their behavior when taxes rise. They work, invest, or report less, so the government collects less than expected.
The same Romer study found that tax increases aimed at reducing deficits did less harm than other increases [12]. And a study of 50 years of major tax cuts for the rich in 18 wealthy countries found they increased inequality but produced no significant gains in growth or jobs [14]. That is the core of our case against Trickle-Down.
3. “Inequality isn’t as bad as the charts say.”
Two economists from the U.S. Treasury and Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation found that, after taxes and government benefits are counted, the top 1%’s share of income has grown far less since 1960 than popular estimates suggest [15]. For wealth, a 2025 study found that if you count the value of future Social Security benefits as wealth, the top 1%’s share has barely changed in 30 years. Social Security makes up nearly half the wealth of the bottom 90% [17].
These are serious studies, and they are hotly disputed. The economists who built the best-known estimates say the differences come mostly from assumptions about income that can’t be directly observed [16]. Our wealth chart uses the Federal Reserve’s own data [18]. More importantly, a promise of future Social Security checks can’t fund a super PAC or hire a lobbyist. When we worry about political power, what matters is wealth people can actually spend, and that is highly concentrated.
4. “Tax cuts didn’t cause the debt.”
Federal debt was about a third of GDP in 1981 and is over 120% today [19]. But much of that rise came from things other than tax cuts: the 1980s defense buildup, rising health-care and retirement costs, wars, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Agreed: the debt has many causes, and both parties share the blame. But major tax cuts (in 1981, 2001, 2003, and 2017) reduced revenue at the same time spending rose. Restoring progressive taxes is one part of putting the country on a sound footing. It isn’t the whole answer.
Where This Leaves Us
Taking the other side seriously makes our case stronger and more precise:
- We should target the whole chain of decisions behind unlimited spending, not just Citizens United, and push for strong disclosure laws now.
- Any amendment should be narrowly written to protect the press and individual speech.
- Progressive taxes need to come with the loopholes closed, or high posted rates mean little.
- On inequality, the strongest point isn’t any single statistic. It’s that concentrated, spendable wealth becomes political power.
We welcome challenges. If you think we’ve misstated an opposing view, please tell us.
References
Citizens United and money in politics
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). U.S. Supreme Court. Struck down limits on independent political spending by corporations and unions (5–4); upheld disclosure and disclaimer requirements (8–1).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/ - SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Removed contribution limits for groups that only make independent expenditures, which created “super PACs.”
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/speechnoworg-v-fec/ - American Civil Liberties Union. “The ACLU and Citizens United.” Statement of the ACLU’s position, including opposition to a constitutional amendment.
https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united - U.S. Senate. S.J.Res.19, 113th Congress (2014), proposed constitutional amendment “relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.” Cloture failed 54–42 on September 11, 2014 (60 votes needed).
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/19 - Levitt, Steven D. (1994). “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House.” Journal of Political Economy 102(4): 777–798.
https://doi.org/10.1086/261954 - Ansolabehere, Stephen, John M. de Figueiredo, and James M. Snyder Jr. (2003). “Why Is There So Little Money in U.S. Politics?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17(1): 105–130.
https://doi.org/10.1257/089533003321164976 - Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page (2014). “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595 - Enns, Peter K. (2015). “Relative Policy Support and Coincidental Representation.” Perspectives on Politics (published online December 2015).
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/relative-policy-support-and-coincidental-representation/BBBD524FFD16C482DCC1E86AD8A58C5B - Gilens, Martin (2015). “The Insufficiency of ‘Democracy by Coincidence’: A Response to Peter K. Enns.” Political Science Now (American Political Science Association).
https://politicalsciencenow.com/the-insufficiency-of-democracy-by-coincidence-a-response-to-peter-k-enns
Taxes
- Congressional Budget Office (2024). The Distribution of Household Income in 2021. Average federal tax rates and shares of taxes by income group.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60706 - Tax Foundation. “Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, Tax Year 2021” (based on IRS Statistics of Income data). Top 1% paid 45.8% of federal income taxes and earned 26.3% of adjusted gross income.
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/ - Romer, Christina D., and David H. Romer (2010). “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks.” American Economic Review 100(3): 763–801.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.763 - Diamond, Peter, and Emmanuel Saez (2011). “The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 25(4): 165–190.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.165 - Hope, David, and Julian Limberg (2022). “The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich.” Socio-Economic Review 20(2): 539–559.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwab061
Inequality and debt
- Auten, Gerald, and David Splinter (2024). “Income Inequality in the United States: Using Tax Data to Measure Long-Term Trends.” Journal of Political Economy 132(7): 2179–2227.
https://doi.org/10.1086/728741 - Piketty, Thomas, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman (2018). “Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(2): 553–609.
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/133/2/553/4430651 - Catherine, Sylvain, Max Miller, and Natasha Sarin (2025). “Social Security and Trends in Wealth Inequality.” Journal of Finance 80(3): 1497–1531.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13440 - Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Distributional Financial Accounts (wealth by percentile group). Source of this site’s wealth chart.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/ - Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED. “Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product” (series GFDEGDQ188S).
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
Claude (Anthropic) did the research and wrote the text.
Sources and references are provided so readers can examine the evidence for themselves.