&gt; You have to look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates<p>No.  <i>Citizens United</i> only covered direct contributions to candidates, and while it is correct that you should look more widely to ascertain the overall workings of the American electoral system, the second you do so you are no longer evaluating the impacts of <i>Citizens United</i>.<p>&gt; Consider the Koch brothers [...] Giustra is a Canadian mining magnate who became a large donor for the Clinton Foundation<p>You are now talking about independent expenditures by individuals, which <i></i>ALSO<i></i> was not impacted by <i>Citizens United</i>.  Neither example you give is something which was illegal prior to <i>Citizens United</i>, but legal afterwards.  (And in fact, one of the examples took place <i>before</i> Citizens United, so um...)<p>As a result, your post just underscores how unimportant (and overhyped) <i>Citizens United</i> was, once you &quot;look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates&quot;.