JumpinJack
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,628
- Reaction score
- 2,971
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The system was not designed against them it was designed for them, especially in the age of kickstarter. Without PACs the Kochs still have enough money to run thier own ad campaigns if they want, so if you get rid of citizens united the only thing you are doing is hurting the average citizens power to band together to make a much larger impact than they could on thier own.
Not really. The Citizens United case:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politicsits definition of corporations as people protected by the First Amendment created a loophole that campaigns and PACs are all too happy to use to their advantage.
As a result, a small group of wealthy donors has gained even more influence on elections, and are able to maintain that influence once candidates take office.
Of the $1 billion spent in federal elections by super PACs since 2010, nearly 60 percent of the money came from just 195 individuals and their spouses, according to the Brennan Center report. Thanks to Citizens United, supporters can make the maximum $5,200 donation directly to a candidate, then make unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs.
So those few wealthy people, and even wealthier corporations and organizations, can make YUGE contributions, in the dark (not disclosed), to super PACs for a specific candidate. The Koch Bros would then tell the candidate in private about it, and would then own that candidate.
An ordinary citizen does not have the kind of money to contribute that a Koch or a corporation does. So that shifted dramatically the power from citizens to corporations and some wealthy citizens. We became more of an oligarchy, because of the Citizens United ruling.