Rep. Auchincloss Criticizes Citizens United But Won't Cosponsor the Amendment to Overturn It

December 16, 2025

In November 2025, Rep. Jake Auchincloss wrote in his Substack newsletter that “when [elections] are [competitive], the Citizens United decision makes them more like auctions than contests.”¹ He urged reforms to “boot big money out of campaigns.”¹

Strong words. But there’s a problem: Auchincloss has consistently declined to cosponsor the Democracy for All Amendment—the primary legislative vehicle to overturn Citizens United through constitutional amendment.²

He is one of only two Massachusetts House Democrats who have not cosponsored this amendment in recent Congresses.² The other is Rep. Richard Neal.

The Amendment Auchincloss Won’t Sign

The Democracy for All Amendment, introduced repeatedly by Rep. Jim McGovern (MA-02), would restore the ability of Congress and the states to regulate campaign spending and distinguish between natural persons and corporations.³ In the 116th Congress, it garnered 221 bipartisan cosponsors.⁴

Why a Constitutional Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) that restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment, ordinary legislation cannot overturn the decision. Only a constitutional amendment can establish that Congress and the states have the authority to regulate campaign spending.

A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures (38 states). It is a high bar—but it is the only path to permanently restore the ability to limit money in politics.

What the Amendment Would Do

The amendment affirms three principles:³

• Restore regulatory authority: The Constitution would not restrict the ability of Congress or states to set reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limitations on campaign contributions and expenditures
• Distinguish corporations from people: Corporations and other artificial entities would not have the same constitutional rights as natural persons when it comes to political spending
• Protect individual rights: The rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of individual human beings

If ratified, the amendment would allow Congress to pass laws limiting super PAC spending, requiring disclosure of dark money, and establishing public financing systems for elections—reforms that are currently unconstitutional under Citizens United.

Every current Massachusetts House Democrat except Auchincloss and Neal has cosponsored this amendment in some recent Congress.²

Seven of nine Massachusetts House Democrats have put their names on the amendment to overturn Citizens United. Only Auchincloss and Neal have declined.

Follow the PAC Money

What distinguishes Auchincloss and Neal from their colleagues who have cosponsored? Federal Election Commission data reveals a striking correlation: the two representatives who refuse to cosponsor the Democracy for All Amendment are also the two who receive the most PAC money relative to colleagues like Pressley and McGovern.⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹

Auchincloss and Neal together have received $536,250 in PAC money this cycle—more than Keating, McGovern, and Pressley combined ($140,100).⁵⁶⁷⁸¹⁰ The other seven Massachusetts House Democrats—including Clark, Trahan, Moulton, and Lynch—all support the amendment. Rep. Katherine Clark receives the most PAC money of any Massachusetts Democrat, but as House Minority Whip, leadership fundraising is expected—and she still cosponsors the amendment.⁹

The correlation is not proof of causation. But it raises an obvious question: does the reluctance to put one’s name on the Citizens United amendment have anything to do with the money flowing from the very system that amendment would dismantle?

Words vs. Actions

In his November 2025 newsletter, Auchincloss acknowledged the problem. He wrote that Citizens United “makes [elections] more like auctions than contests” and urged reforms to “boot big money out of campaigns.”¹

But as early as July 2021, constituents were already urging him to cosponsor the constitutional amendment. A letter to the editor in The Sun Chronicle noted that Auchincloss “has not yet signed on to such a resolution to amend” and urged readers to contact him.¹¹

Four years later, he still hasn’t signed on.

The gap between rhetoric and action is telling. It is one thing to criticize Citizens United in a newsletter. It is another to put your name on the amendment that would actually overturn it—especially when doing so might alienate the PACs and wealthy donors who benefit from the current system.

Joe Kennedy III Cosponsored the Amendment

Auchincloss’s predecessor in the 4th District, Joe Kennedy III, took a clearer stance. During his 2012 campaign, Kennedy said he “strongly believe[s] that the Citizens United decision should be reversed” and called for transparency legislation like the DISCLOSE Act.¹²

Kennedy put his name where his mouth was. In 2019, he cosponsored H.J.Res.2, the Democracy for All Amendment, in the 116th Congress.¹³ When the amendment came before him, he signed on.

Auchincloss inherited Kennedy’s seat—but not his willingness to formally back the constitutional remedy to Citizens United.

My Position: Overturn Citizens United

I support the Democracy for All Amendment and will cosponsor it on day one.

The Citizens United decision unleashed unlimited corporate spending in American elections, fundamentally corrupting our democracy. Since 2010, over $2.7 billion has flowed through super PACs in the 2024 federal election cycle alone.¹⁴ This is not democracy—it’s an auction where billionaires and corporations purchase political outcomes while ordinary citizens are drowned out.

Massachusetts has been at the forefront of this fight. In 2012, the state legislature passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment, making Massachusetts the seventh state to do so.¹⁵ Sixty-eight communities—including Boston, Springfield, and Worcester—have voted in favor.¹⁵ In 2018, Massachusetts voters approved Question 2, creating a citizens commission to address corporate personhood and political spending.¹⁶

The message from Bay State voters is clear. The question is whether their representative in Congress will listen.

Corporations are not people. Money is not speech. And the voters of Massachusetts’s 4th District deserve a representative who will do more than criticize Citizens United in a newsletter—one who will actually fight to overturn it.

Read my full position: Overturn Citizens United

---

References