One judge says the (in)famous Citizens United decision makes it so.
True, legally? Consequences, if this becomes the law of the land? How will said Supreme Court react, if/when they get it?
They were legal before the Citizens United decision, weren’t they? I thought that all that changed was that now there’s no need for disclosure of how much they contribute.
They’ve been legal for a while. My understanding is that citizens united just lets corporations donate directly to candidates instead of running independent 527s like the swift boat for truth campaign. I think the only real difference now is that you can use unlimited corporate and personal funds to say ‘vote for candidate X’ instead of just being allowed to say ‘candidate Y is an asshole’.
Soft money, where corporations donate as much as they want to the party and then it is funneled into certain candiates was legal until McCain feingold. I don’t know if there are loopholes in it, but before that a corporation could donate as much as they wanted for ‘party building’.
The only difference is the corporate and plutocratic nature of our democracy is becoming more transparent now.
So… what exactly is the judge in the article saying, then? I’m confused now. 
Before McCain-feingold, corporations could give unlimited funds for ‘party building’ which could then be used to build up one candidate or tear down another.
Under McCain-feingod corporations could donate as much as they wanted to independent 527s which were against the candidate who is running against their opponent.
To me (I’m not a lawyer or trained anything), it is basically saying you can donate corporate money telling people to ‘vote for candidate X’ whereas before citizens united you could only tell people ‘vote against candidate Y’.
So the wealthy groups that funded the swift boat veterans for truth could run anti-kerry ads, but not pro-bush ads. now they could do both under citizens united.
Wait. If personal donations are legally limited, shouldn’t corporate donations be limited to the same amount?