>>71856305
Not a Bernie bro at all. But I really don't buy the Supreme Court's reasoning that because money is intermingled with disseminating speech, any restrictions private election spending is necessarily an unconstitutional restraint on free speech. By that reasoning, wouldn't it be unconstitutional to prohibit people from paying others to vote a certain way?

Shitty ruling. Didn't help anybody out, except now elections cost hundreds of millions of dollars and we all have to watch endless campaign ads.

They were stupid to try and stop that anti-Hillary PAC from selling their pay-per-veiw documentary or whatever in the first place. That's what the case was about and the Supreme Court went way further than anybody expected. Guess that backfired!

>>71856716
>bribing someone to vote is the exact same as bombarding them with your opinion.

As I said, objectively retarded...

>>71856305
yes the fact the Clinton foundation can take millions from Saudi Arabia and banks is only helping the country

>>71856305
The only real alternative is to change the model of campaign financing. Instead of private expanses, you could have every party and candidate getting federal/local funding of X dollars to spend on their campaign, while banning all or most other contributions. This is how it's done in certain countries and it's arguably more fair as it levels the playing field.
However, enforcing it is a fucking nuisance and politicians inevitably get caught up in violations of campaign finance laws (in Israel almost every election cycles at least one or two prominent people are investigated because of this).
And of course there's also the issue of free speech as the OP mentioned. Why should I be banned from voicing an opinion in support of this or that party? Even if I happen to get paid for it?
All things considered the Citizens United model seems like the best option.

>>71856955
>Clinton Foundation is a Super-Pac
kys

>>71856933
Money = speech. By prohibiting me from spending my money to influence someone's vote you are infringing on my right to free speech.

>>71857532
Influence and quid pro quo are not the same thing.

>>71856305
>Reminder that if you are against the Citizens United ruling you are objectively retarded.
This is what corporate shill traitors who should literally be hanged for treason actually want you to believe.

>money = speech
No, you stupid nigger. Money = money. Speech = speech.

Daily reminder that mass third world immigration is the only thing more destructive to this country than corporate personhood and allowing corporations to corrupt our political process.

>>71857825
They amount to the same result, you sack of fucking cancerous shit.

>unironically using non-existent 'free will' to justify macro-level propaganda
Reminder that people like OP and the corporation(s) paying him need to all be hanged if the Republic is to be saved.

I think people overestimate money in campaigns. No one gives a shit about ads, ¡Yeb! had all the ad money in the Republicans and no one gave a shit about him. Trump and Bernie were big underdogs in this regard and look how well they did. I mean, Shillary is still winning on her side, but that's probably because normal democrats aren't quite as enthusiastic about voting for a crusty old uncharismatic communist kike as college students are.

I think a far greater barrier to getting a campaign going is the party actually letting you do it and getting the media to actually give you (free) attention.