[dantheman]

Citizens United is very clear - it's about free speech. if the New York times wants to release a documentary about a candidate before the election would you stop them?

Libertarians, of course, support super PACS, people do not lose their ability to speak when they form a group.

To illustrate this point imagine 2 people: a famous movie star and a wealthy movie producer. When the famous person speaks it is news and spread freely, whereas the producer needs to pay to get their message out. If you restrict one, you should restrict the other.

[unityByFreedom]

We still have limits on donating directly to candidates.

More dollars going to super PACs devalues people's votes. I think it's producing lousy candidates so I would support a law for enforcement that would bring us back to the time when we didn't have super PACs. I understand you disagree. That's fine.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Citizens United is very clear - it's about free speech."

The problem that people have related to Citizens United is that, in the current system, money = free speech.

This isn't about freedom from persecution, unless you count corporations as people.