In this week’s edition of The Payson Chronicle

 

In This Week’s Edition

 

Our American Story

A Decade and a Half After Citizens United: How One Supreme Court Decision Reshaped American Politics

In January 2010, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States fundamentally altered the landscape of American campaign finance. By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that corporations and labor unions have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political advocacy. In doing so, the decision overturned decades of legal precedent and effectively dismantled key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as McCain-Feingold.

At the heart of the case was a dispute over whether a nonprofit corporation, Citizens United, could air and promote a critical film about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries. Federal law at the time prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for “electioneering communications” close to an election. The Court’s majority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that such restrictions amounted to censorship of political speech.

The majority opinion framed political spending as a form of protected expression, asserting that the government cannot limit speech based on the speaker’s identity. “The First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity,” Kennedy wrote. In essence, the ruling equated the political speech rights of corporations and unions with those of individual citizens, at least in the context of independent expenditures.

Critics, including the dissenting justices led by Justice John Paul Stevens, argued that the decision ignored the potential for corruption or undue influence. Stevens warned that corporations, unlike individuals, are artificial entities with vast financial resources and no direct accountability to voters. Allowing them to spend freely in elections, he argued, risked distorting the democratic process.

The Rise of Super PACs and Dark Money

In the years following the decision, its impact became immediately visible. Perhaps the most significant development was the rise of “Super PACs,” or independent expenditure-only political action committees. These organizations can raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations, and unions, provided they do not coordinate directly with candidates or campaigns.

Super PACs quickly became major players in federal and state elections, spending hundreds of millions—and eventually billions—of dollars on advertising and advocacy. While candidates themselves remain subject to contribution limits, these outside groups often dominate the airwaves, shaping public perception of races from presidential contests to local elections.

Another consequence has been the growth of so-called “dark money.” Certain nonprofit organizations, often organized under sections of the tax code that do not require donor disclosure, can spend heavily on political messaging without revealing their funding sources. This has made it more difficult for voters to know who is behind the ads they see.

Supporters of the decision argue that it has expanded political participation by allowing more voices to be heard. They contend that independent expenditures do not inherently corrupt the political process because they are not coordinated with candidates. From this perspective, the ruling strengthens free speech and limits government overreach.

Opponents, however, see a system increasingly dominated by wealthy donors and powerful organizations. They argue that while speech may be technically free, it is not equally amplified. A billionaire or major corporation can now spend far more to influence elections than an average citizen, raising concerns about political equality.

Changes in the Political Climate

Since 2010, American elections have grown markedly more expensive. Presidential election cycles now routinely cost billions of dollars, with outside spending playing a central role. Campaigns have become more reliant on media strategies, particularly television and digital advertising funded by Super PACs.

The decision has also contributed to a more polarized political environment. Outside groups often produce highly targeted and sometimes negative advertising, designed to energize specific segments of the electorate. Without direct accountability to a candidate, these groups may take more aggressive approaches, which can deepen divisions among voters.

Additionally, the influence of major donors has become a defining feature of modern campaigns. While small-dollar fundraising has increased in the digital age, large contributions to Super PACs still account for a significant portion of political spending. This dynamic has fueled ongoing debates about whether elected officials are more responsive to major donors than to the general public.

Impact on Everyday Americans

For ordinary Americans, the effects of Citizens United are both direct and indirect. On a practical level, voters are exposed to more political advertising than ever before. During election seasons, television, social media, and even streaming platforms are saturated with messages funded by outside groups.

The decision also influences the types of issues that receive attention. Organizations with substantial financial backing can elevate certain topics, shaping the national conversation. This can mean greater visibility for some causes, but it may also crowd out others that lack similar resources.

There are broader implications for trust in government as well. Surveys in the years since the ruling have shown persistent public concern about the role of money in politics. Many Americans believe that wealthy donors and corporations wield too much influence, which can erode confidence in democratic institutions.

At the same time, the decision has energized reform movements. Advocacy groups across the political spectrum have called for measures such as increased transparency, public financing of campaigns, or even a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling. Several states and municipalities have experimented with new systems designed to amplify small donors and reduce reliance on large contributions.

More than fifteen years after it was decided, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission remains one of the most controversial rulings in modern American history. It sits at the intersection of two core democratic values: free speech and political equality. While the Court emphasized the former, critics argue that the latter has been compromised.

Mourning the Passing of Our Friend

Garth Peart

Ben Garth Peart, age 87, passed away peacefully on April 26, 2026, at his home in Spring Lake, Utah, surrounded by his loving family after a valiant battle with Parkinson’s disease.

Garth was born on April 30, 1938, in Santaquin, Utah. He attended school in Santaquin and Payson. On November 16, 1956, he married the love of his life, Nedra Ellen Hiatt.

Garth dedicated 30 years of service to the State of Utah as a surveyor. Outside of work, his life centered around his deep love for his family. He was an incredible husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. Some of his most cherished moments were spent taking his grandsons fishing and being with his family.

After retiring, Garth found great joy in driving his grandchildren to school each morning, teaching them to appreciate life’s simple blessings. He had a special way of making each person feel known and loved, even giving every family member a unique nickname—names that will be treasured forever.

Garth and Nedra shared a love for their team of mules, participating in parades, weddings, funerals, and wagon trains throughout Utah and Wyoming. He was known for his strength, dependability, and steady presence. If you were fortunate enough to be his friend, you knew you had someone truly solid in your corner.

He is survived by his loving wife, Nedra Peart; his three children: Benny (Susan) Peart, Angela (Brad) Stanton, and Natalie (Mike) Stauffer; his grandchildren: Trevor Peart, Austin Stanton, Brianne Carter, Colten Stanton, Rebecca Oberg, Hilary Larsen, and Bailee Tanner; and his 12 great-grandchildren.

He will be deeply missed. We will honor his life by striving to live with the same love, strength, and devotion he showed to all of us.

Funeral Services will be held Wednesday, April 29, 2026 at 1:00 pm at the Spring Lake LDS Church, 12625 S Spring Lake Road with a viewing from 12:00 to 12:45 pm prior to the services. Interment, Santaquin City Cemetery. 

Subscribe

 

PAYSON PEOPLE

 

James F. Hiatt Jr. was born in Payson in 1897. A certified electrical engineer—he earned his diploma from the American School in Chicago, Illinois in 1933–Hiatt worked as an electrician for Payson City for 28 years. And he repaired radios at a time when families gathered around the mass medium tech for entertainment and the news of the day. The ad for his repair service that appears here was published in The Payson Chronicle in 1937, when an estimated 75% of U.S. households had at least one radio receiver. It was the Golden Age of Radio.

PAYSON PEOPLE

 

Ella Larsen was born in May 1914 in Odense, Denmark, the tenth child of Lars and Karen Marie Larsen. The family emigrated from Denmark to the United States when she was six years old, and lived for a time in Payson. While finishing school, she studied to become a beautician, and opened a beauty salon at age 16 with a loan from her father that she paid off quickly. Ella met the love of her life Roy Gale when she was 15 and they were married in June 1932 in the Salt Lake Temple—not long after her advertisement for permanent waves at Vogue Beauty Shoppe appeared in The Payson Chronicle’s May 20, 1932 edition.