3 ms·
Citizens United v. FEC is what changed. Essentially all elected officials are completely dependent on contributions now. A party, candidate or prosecutor who m
by TomMckenny 8y ago
Citizens United v. FEC is what changed. Essentially all elected officials are completely dependent on contributions now.
A party, candidate or prosecutor who makes contributors nervous has no chance of re-election.
- tzs 8y agoThe effect of Citizens United has become massively overstated. It lifted the prohibition on corporations (for-profit or nonprofit), labor unions, and other associations from spending money to communicate on political issues. It didn't change the rules on contributions to candidates or parties.
- noisy_boy 8y agoIsn't that just supporting/opposing the candidate by proxy? If a corporation creates a PAC favoring issue X which airs ad/buys social media exposure supporting the candidate who favors issue X, they have in-effect bought airtime for candidate X without any direct contribution to him/her. In this day and age, that kind of exposure is as good as paying the candidate.
- anarazel 8y agoBut speechnow then effectively did, and that was basically just applying the framework of citizens united.
- grigjd3 8y agoSuper PACs can buy attack ads. In binary elections, that as good as supporting the other guy.