comment: >
context: Just doing it out in the open now.  Thanks “both sides are the same” centrists. >
  
  Of course they do, because most of them are disingenuous bastards >
  
  Citizens United must be repealed end of story. >
  
  Citizens United is a SCOTUS decision, not a law, so it can’t be repealed. >
  
  However, laws can be made which challenge the scotus precedent… if only we had a few more justices to match the number of circuit courts, as the Founders intended. >
  
  It was a LEGAL LAW that Citizen's United case overturned and the law was passed by a bi-partisan legislature and signed by a Republican President. The Conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled it violated the Constitution.
  As long as that ilk (which is now actually even more Conservatives/openly right) members on the Supreme Court exists... I'm not really sure why anyone thinks any new laws would somehow matter.
  The only thing that would stop the Supreme Court is a Constitutional Amendment enacting Campaign Finance Reform. >
  
  Can you link me to the text of this law? >
  
  It says in this article that the goal of the bill was to decrease the influence of “soft money” (PACs), and that the Supreme Court modified it to consider ads “free speech”. Am I misunderstanding? I read this article as well and came away with the same impression. Was there some oversight in the law? 
  The millionaires’ amendment seems fine in concept, idk about the numbers specifically though. 
  The 527 part seems fine too-
  
  …parties were prohibited from donating funds to so-called tax-exempt “527” groups, named after a provision of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, any funds spent on “federal election activity” as defined in the BCRA were required to be raised in accordance with FECA limits. >
  
  The guy who founded the PAC has such a great Wikipedia bio. 
  
  Stephen Moore, also known as Steve Moore, has been employed by many conservative groups in various roles such as "Senior Fellow," "Visiting Scholar" and "Senior Economist." He founded the Club for Growth and has served on the Wall Street Journals editorial board. Moore is frequently referred to as an "economist" in the media, despite pushback from tenured professors of Economics due to his lack of a Ph.D. in the subject.[1] Moore was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board by President Trump in March 2019,[2] but withdrew his name "amid revelations about decades' worth of disparaging comments Moore has made about women." >
  
  I wondered when buying support for speakership with super-pac money would get flagged