3 ms·

That's not what the Citizens United decision says at all. It allows Super PACs to collect unlimited donations to run campaign ads supporting or opposing specifi

• wl 15y ago
  That's not quite correct, actually. Citizens United overturned a part of a law that prohibited corporations and unions from spending their money on "electioneering communications" (generally defined as communications advocating for or against a specific candidate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The decision is not about PACs or limitations on their ability to raise funds, though PACs certainly benefited from the ruling.
• khafra 15y ago
  > It allows Super PACs to collect unlimited donations to run campaign ads supporting or opposing specific candidates. That may open the door to corruption in a certain sense, but it doesn't allow quid pro quo on active legislation. If the Citizens United decision did not allow Super PACs to talk about supporting or opposing candidates based on their actions with regard to particular legislation, then I was wrong. But that would mean Dodd committed a particularly egregious violation of the law in public. I don't think he would do that, and I think you were wrong to say I was wrong.