The problem with bashing the Citizens United decision is that the legitimacy of said bashing rests on our accepting as a given the following two points:
1) that politicians accepting corporate campaign contributions will inevitably return the favor by introducing and passing legislation, or otherwise engage in activities, which will financially benefit such corporations, and
2) that there is a direct correlation between the amount of money raised by a political candidate and the number of votes garnered by that candidate.
While both points doubtless occur from time-to-time, Ive seen no studies indicating that the cash generated by Citizens United has made these points any more likely to transpire, or has made them the rule rather than the exception.
Re: “Feedback 3/15”
The problem with bashing the Citizens United decision is that the legitimacy of said bashing rests on our accepting as a given the following two points:
1) that politicians accepting corporate campaign contributions will inevitably return the favor by introducing and passing legislation, or otherwise engage in activities, which will financially benefit such corporations, and
2) that there is a direct correlation between the amount of money raised by a political candidate and the number of votes garnered by that candidate.
While both points doubtless occur from time-to-time, Ive seen no studies indicating that the cash generated by Citizens United has made these points any more likely to transpire, or has made them the rule rather than the exception.