Most people don't know the background of the Citizens United case. Since you do, then I'd wager that you also know the effects that it's had on campaign finance

Most people don't know the background of the Citizens United case. Since you do, then I'd wager that you also know the effects that it's had on campaign finance laws. The ruling overturned existing laws that limited campaign contributions from corporations while also overruling other cases that had previously limited free speech rights. > It means that citizens don't lose their free speech rights when they form groups. That's basically what the court's majority opinion stated. But the dissenting opinion also stated that the ruling provides more opportunities for corruption and for laws to be "bought and sold". So to say that GP's comments are "Not evenly remotely true" is disingenuous.