[ch4s3]

People say this, but I think you probably aren't clear on what the Citizens United decision meant. It boiled down to overturning a law that prevented groups of people from spending more than a certain dollar value on anything that could be considered campaigning. The law was so broad that it was used against a Michael Moore documentary, and was obviously unconstitutional.

Also the idea that you can just reliably buy congresspeople by spending money on ads is a farce.

[staticman2]

A cursory look at Wikipedia would tell you that Citizens United overturned a Supreme Court decision from 1990 called Austin v. Michigan.

In other words it did not boil down to "overturning a law" but created a new conservative doctrine that would apply to any law.

If it's not possible to buy politicians with campaign ads you shouldn't have a problem with a law making it illegal to buy politicans with campaign ads, no?

Yet for some reason you are spreading falsehoods about Citizens United, claiming a highly contested 5 to 4 decision turned on what was "obviously unconstitutional" (if it was obvious shouldn't it have been a unanimous decision?) almost like you want people to believe the case's ruling was sounder than it was and are afraid of it being overturned.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. "Buying politicans is my right as an American but also doesn't work so stay calm and don't panic over the fact I am buying politicians"

[kadoban]

> I think you probably aren't clear on what the Citizens United decision meant

Should I take this as a prompt to assume random crap about you?

CU drastically increased spending by outside, untracked groups, on the ridiculous premise that money is not a corrupting influence in politics. It was the end of meaningful campaign finance regulations.

> Also the idea that you can just reliably buy congresspeople by spending money on ads is a farce.

Why are companies and groups spending so much then, including spending on both sides of many races?