[AnimalMuppet]

Because (despite what you seem to think) Citizens United did not create a tyranny.

And it seems ironic that you oppose Citizens United, but favor the First Amendment. If Citizens United had been decided the other direction, that would have been a blow against the First Amendment.

[munk-a]

Some rulings against Citizens United would have been tyrannical, it was and is a very complicated question where assets of a campaign like their access to media and a copy shop offering to print bulletins for free can become really sticky questions.

The US needs to heavily reform how election funding, free speech and volunteered labour all relate and it is a complicated question. But Citizens United did take us a big step in the wrong direction by lowering the impact of individuals' expression of free speech in relation to financial endorsement.

[hannasanarion]

Citizens United would not have been a blow to the First, that's silly. The right of free speech does not necessarily include the right to unlimited corporate political campaign spending. Our country ran just fine and the people were plenty free before the age of super-PACs.