[thinkharderdev]

Not really. Citizens United was about limits on "soft money". Basically it removed any restrictions on spending by PACs on behalf of a candidate as long as the spending isn't explicitly coordinated with the candidate. Personal vs corporate spending is not really relevant.

[0110101001]

This is incorrect. Citizens United found that the BCRA's ban on corporate independent expenditures was unconstitutional. PACs were not affected by this decision.

Super PACs — which I assume you're thinking of — would only become a thing later in the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission decision.

SBF has always had the right to spend millions on politics. FTX has not (well, it wouldn't have had it if it existed between 2004 and 2010.)

[thinkharderdev]

Ah, yeah you are right.