So fears over Citizens United was GREATLY overblown, yes?

[kanageddaamen]

Mr Khan said:

badgenome said:

Mr Khan said:

The founding fathers could not conceive of big moneyed interests becoming the primary global threat to liberty, that beginning about 70 years after their time.

Neither can I when the primary threat to liberty comes from governments - just as it always has.

It is plainly ludicrous to say that these corporations can propagandize as much as they want while these other ones can't engage in political speech at all.

I would say that none of the companies should. Only people. Which wouldn't stop the determined companies from acting through people anyway, but at least then we could have a reasonable claim of having government of the people rather than government of the legally fictitious entities.

Then you are saying we should repeal freedom of the press.

This argument also would claim that art created by a corporation would not be protected under free speech, or that corporations can't protest to the government.

Also, to reiterate the point I made earlier, speech (in this case money) is never the problem.  It is peoples' reactions to that speech that is the issue.  If people are swayed by politcal spending, that is not the fault of the spending, it is the fault of the uninformed individual.