Why is it a partisan issue then? The right argues for unlimited spending and the left argues against it, as we can see even in this thread. That doesn’t suggest that both sides get the same benefit from it.
My employer makes monetary political contributions to me on a bi-weekly basis, but I still have to pay taxes on that money, unlike the speech he provides at random intervals. So I’d say they are not the same thing.
It also doesn’t suggest that both sides get different benefits from it. It also doesn’t suggest that Taylor Swift has very catchy music. We could make a list of the things it doesn’t suggest!
This is not a partisan issue. 80% of the country is against Citizen’s United. Most elected politicians aren’t. This is a rich/poor issue far more than a Republican/Democrat or liberal/conservative issue.
79% of the country wouldn’t be able to explain what *Citizens United *did.
This is the negative effect.
And the paper cited in your cite has data from 1982 to 2002.
Things, especially the media market, have changed dramatically since then.
For example, there is thing called the interwebs. Maybe you have heard of it. It has radically changed where people get their newsand how they consume media.
The top 5 political websites in the U.S. are Huffington Post, The Blaze, Drudge Report, NewsMax and Politico.
Huffington gets ~110 million unique viewers a month. The highest rated t.v. news show gets ~556 thousand viewers per show. Note, this is for the 25-54 age group so it is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison but the numbers are interesting in that the t.v. show gets something like 17 million viewers a month.
So, on that basis alone, the old thinking of ‘Rich people buy ads and control politics’ isn’t going to fly the same way it did back in the 1980s. It no longer requires tons of money to reach people.
Slee
Would you care to summarize?
Nobody said they were though.
Donations to candidates are NOT what SuperPACs do. They spend money on their own speech. That is…speech.
Donations to SuperPACs are also not donations to candidates.
And who are you to say they have a negative affect?
Any claim of a negative affect based on “I don’t like who the voters are choosing” is laughable and completely undemocratic.
It’s a bribe whenever someone they don’t like gives it to someone they don’t like.
So if you give money to a candidate, is it bribery too?
You completely miss the point.
Nobody has ever said donations to a candidate are speech. Donations to candidates are already limited. The maximum donation on the federal level is $5,000 per election per candidate. Still is after the Citizens United decision.
SPENDING money on speech is speech. That is the issue.
Lance Strongarm essentially said it already, but Citizens United doesn’t allow big money to give money to candidates. By definition, PACs and CU-related spending are not donations to the politician and not under the politician’s control.
All CU does is say that you’re allowed to spend your own money on your own speech and that the government can’t stop you from doing that. Personally, I’d be offended at any other outcome from the courts.
And probably 79.9 percent don’t understand it. Reporters have done a terrible of job explaining it, mostly because they don’t understand it either.
Since the opinion of voters can be swayed by advertisements, what defines “democratic” any more? Elections can be bought. Isn’t that also completely undemocratic?
Interesting observation. Apologist means “a person who defends or supports something (such as a religion, cause, or organization) that is being criticized or attacked by other people”. In this case, are the people “attacking poverty” the ones trying to fix it with .gov solutions? And the ones who oppose basic income / more welfare the “apologists” for “defending” poverty (ie defending the status quo)?
Cite?
I always thought of it as primarily a left vs right issue (the right defending free speech and the left wanting to quash it 
)
Damn those voters! If only they voted how other people knew was better for them. What you call swaying by advertisers others may call effective persuasion to a superior position. Ultimately people have a vote.
An undesirable outcome is not evidence of anti-democracy or an election being bought.
If you Google “citizens united poll” there are lots of cites. Doesn’t matter - 2 wolves and a sheep don’t get to vote on what’s for dinner and civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote.