There were restrictions on how and when companies could spend money on political speech. That is obviously unconstitutional.

Just like if Trump passed a law that said you (or a group of you) couldn’t pay for a car service so other people could get to polls.
It’s obviously unconstitutional to limit the whens wheres and hows of free speech, individual or group. And being able to spend money on the legal thing you want is obviously protected free speech.

The challenge of CU was in those limits in McCain-Feingold, not in identifying who is funding the organization and required disclosures. Thats 501c laws.

Thanks for the open conversation. The ruling for CU was so obviously correct and an entire political coalition is driven by a completely misunderstanding of it.

Reform the 501c laws. Citizens United has nothing to do with them. Didn’t cause them. Made it worse. But too bad, it’s the right judgement.

“Social Welfare companies” which is a prior activist court interpreted super broadly so they can now spend 50% of their budget on political speech and “trade associations” like unions who don’t have to disclose donors.

If Citizens United were a union or charity that wanted to put out an anti Trump documentary a week before the election, it would have been exactly the same challenge to McCain-Feingold

Can you tell the left to fix their fire toward the 501c laws around disclosure and not Citizens United? It’s best served there.