It’s been a decade since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC. NPR’s Ari Shapiro speaks with Nate Persily of Stanford Law School about the decision’s effect on campaign finance.

…

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

Ten years ago today, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that has been called a victory for free speech, a hostile corporate takeover of our democratic process and a small revolution in campaign finance law. We’re talking about the case Citizens United v. FEC. The court ruled 5-4 that corporations have the right to spend as much money as they like to support or oppose political candidates. Opponents argue that this let powerful, sometimes hidden, interests reshape American politics.

To look at how this ruling has changed politics in the last decade, Nate Persily of Stanford Law School joins us.

Hi there.

NATE PERSILY: Hello.

SHAPIRO: With 10 years of hindsight, what effect do you think that this one decision has had on campaign finance?

PERSILY: Well, I think Citizens United has really become more of a metaphor for all the problems in the campaign finance system as opposed to sort of focus on the decision itself. But the decision itself was simply about clearing the way for corporations to spend as much money as they wanted on politics, on electioneering activities. And while we haven’t seen a rush of corporations filling that void, we have seen rich individuals – in particular, through the vehicle of superPACs – spending an enormous amount of money since Citizens United.