When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, criticism came largely from liberals, progressives and Democrats, who argued that the ruling would make it far easier for millionaires and billionaires to buy elections. But conservative former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R-California) says some Republicans are now pushing back against the influence of big money in U.S. politics.

In Citizens United, then-Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, arguing that campaign spending is a form of "speech" and that limits on campaign contributions violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Kennedy, a right-wing libertarian appointed by President Ronald Reagan, often sided with the Supreme Court's liberal justices on issues such as gay rights and abortion, frustrating the Religious Right. On Citizens United, however, Kennedy drew sharp criticism from the left.

Campbell, writing in a July 23 op-ed for The Hill, argued that more Republicans are now speaking out against large-scale political spending.

"Of all the problems I observed over the nine years I served in Congress, none were as corrosive to the functioning of our political system as the tremendous sums of cash spent to influence elections," wrote Campbell, who left the GOP in 2016 and is now a law professor at Chapman University in Southern California. "Since I left Washington in 2001, the role of money in politics has only gotten worse. Outside spending in the 2022 midterms topped $2 billion, which then nearly doubled in 2024. Early projections for 2026 suggest that another record will topple."

Campbell said the issue has become more prominent for voters as spending has increased.

"As spending has dramatically increased, so too has the salience of the issue among voters," the former congressman wrote. "Pew recently found 'the role of money in politics' to be among Americans' top concerns for the second year in a row, ranking higher than inflation and the cost of healthcare. Long assumed to be an issue exclusively of the left, it is a top issue of concern among Republican voters, according to Pew, and is the only issue that supermajorities of both Democrats and Republican voters said is a 'very big problem.'"

According to Campbell, the "tough reelection campaigns" Republicans face in the 2026 midterms may help explain why "some Republicans" are "increasingly warming up to campaign finance reform." He cited Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Michigan), who "recently introduced Joint House Resolution 191, a constitutional amendment that would allow Americans to limit the sums of money spent in campaigns."

The amendment route is central to Campbell's argument because he frames the current limits on regulation as rooted in Supreme Court precedent rather than ordinary legislation. That makes the debate not only about campaign tactics, but also about whether the Constitution should be changed to give elected officials and voters more room to restrict political spending.

"Waiting for the Supreme Court to reverse course on 50 years of jurisprudence is not a realistic strategy," Campbell wrote. "The only durable, realistic option we have to restore the ability to regulate campaign spending is to pass a constitutional amendment. The Republicans who join Barrett on the issue of money in politics will come from different places. Some will represent competitive districts where independents will decide the election. Some will represent safe seats but have watched primary fundraising spiral into something none of them quite recognize from earlier in their careers."

Campbell added that other Republicans may support the issue because they believe voters should have more influence than donors.

"Some will simply believe that voters, not donors, should set the country's agenda," Campbell wrote. "What unites them is the recognition that the politics of this issue have shifted — and that the voters of both parties are well ahead of Washington in noticing."