I won’t try to write better than Greenwald in this article, but I will try to give you a short account of it because I think it’s important that all of us are unified against the arguments that the Supreme Court used to uphold Citizens United. To make it a fast read, I will be even using “cut & paste” in some cases, then most of the worlds are Greenwald’s and not mine.
The question in the article is, in short, that we are either supporting the idea that corporate expenditures are so corrupting of the political process that limits are justified even if they infringe free speech, or we weaken the argument arguing that in *some* cases it’s not. We can’t really oppose Citizen United if we agree (even in a few cases) that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” (The key of Justice Kennedy’s argument of CU decision!)
Supporters of CU argue that unless you can *prove* “quid pro quo” you should not “suspend the Corporation’s free speech”… than, indeed, you could even accept huge campaign donations from banks and corporations and that will not compromise your principals and votes. That you can accept huge speaking fees shortly before and after you hold public posts with massive political power and still be true to the interest of the people over those of corporations, banks and Wall Street.
I hope that regardless of your Presidential Primary preference, you will join me to reject any argument that in the end strengthen the Supreme Court resolution on Citizen United.
Again, the full article here: theintercept.com/...