I've been reading a lot about campaign finance, specifically about how Citizens United has changed the rules and culture around financial expenditures, and I've learned quite a bit about how this system now works.
After reading this FRONTLINE interview with James Bopp, the legal architect of the Citizens United case, its difficult not to get frustrated with where the country has found itself with regard to our electoral process and the ways in which our candidates and advocacy for certain issues are funded. If you read the article, you'll find that James Bopp is masterful in the way he crafts his arguments, his elusive language when it comes to the differences between the terms campaign, political, and issue as it regards different types of spending, and his adherence to a very strict understanding of the role money plays in advocacy-in-general. In short, he believes that not only are the current regulations (after Citizens) too restrictive, but that the campaign finance system would actually be more 'free' if individuals and organizations (advocacy groups, corporations, or unions) could contribute unlimited sums of money to whomever they choose.
Depending on the way a question is asked in the interview, money is both speech and not speech. If money is contributed directly to a candidate or a PAC, then its a contribution (and there are limits and its required to be disclosed). If money is given to an advocacy/lobby group (501(c)(4)), then it's speech and that group can use that money to advocate or lobby for a specific issue (but not a direct candidate) and there are no limits and no disclosure requirements. Then there are Super PACs, which don't have a contribution limit, but there are disclosure requirements, and (here's the kicker) they can't coordinate with candidates and their campaigns. The term 'coordination' hasn't really been teased out all the well in the legal circles. As such, Corporations, Unions, and people like Sheldon Adelson or George Soros can deliver millions of dollars to Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s in an attempt to influence an election.
The people, like Bopp, that currently defend this system (and wish to deregulate it further) claim that this is a boon for free elections and the 1st Amendment. They claim that its a problem that people can't contribute unlimited sums to candidates, because the money might end up in somewhere else (like a 501(c)(4) social-welfare group) to be used in a less transparent way. That argument makes a lot of sense on its face, but then you look at the data and it doesn't.
