[skinnymuch]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

To most readers, wiki’s page about it appears to not paint the same picture you’re describing.

Here’s the initial synopsis: “It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.”

Corporations and other associations shouldn’t be allowed to donate any money for political ads or political causes. My initial question was if the Citizens United case limits donations. It does by giving unlimited political spending power to most legal entities.

[twoodfin]

What distinction are you drawing between my “independent political spending” and Wikipedia’s “independent expenditures for political campaigns”?

Corporations and other associations shouldn’t be allowed to donate any money for political ads or political causes.

Corporations like the Sierra Club? Why not?

[skinnymuch]

Ah my bad. I meant partisan political causes. I don’t know enough about this to give you a distinction. I can point to the policy. I’d like Citizens United overturned.

> Corporations like the Sierra Club? Why not?

For partisan causes I don’t think society has space for money to be that powerful. The establishment Dem and Repub parties, politicians, and outside money coming in shouldn’t be able to buy votes and mindshare via ads and marketing that cost tons of money through/with entities.