Editorials: How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game? | Matt Bai/ NYTimes.com

In the summer of 2004, venture capitalist Andy Rappaport said that "100 million dollars are worthless." At the moment, it is rich liberalism like George Soros and Peter Lewis. They want to influence national politics by funding their own voter voting. Creating investment funds for machinery and television commercials and start-up companies Lapapota's statement impressed me and expressed the highest arrogance. In American politics at the time, what really meant 100 million dollars? Eight years later, of course, his remarks seem strange. Only conservative groups, including Super PAC led by Carloff and other groups backed by Charles brothers and David Koch brothers, are spending more than $ 1 billion to break Mr. Barack Obama by November. If you talk to most Democrats or read most of the news reports, the reason for this dramatic leap in political spending is due to two words. This term is an abbreviated form of the Supreme Court's ruling, giving companies and individuals the same political speech rights, thus virtually eliminating restrictions on corporate funds in politics. It is repeatedly stated in 2012 that it is releasing a lot of funds from the companies and millionaires operated by the Citizen Federation. As a result, the company has taken over the politics of the United States.

As a matter of political strategy, this is a useful story that can appeal to the Liberal Party and independent voters, not necessarily enthusiastic about the government, but they are concerned about social inequality. what? From the moment of civic joint judgment. But if you try to understand what is going on with politics and money, the story accepted by the Citizen Federation is too simple. In a way this is completely wrong.

The first thing to do is to understand what Citizens United did and not to change the opaque rule of managing external funds. For example, back in 2007, they will pretend that you are a conservative donor. At this time, it is still free to write a check about the amount of 527. The shadow clause of the tax law makes these groups legal and named. Despite the fact that companies can not contribute to candidates or political parties, they can freely conduct unlimited inspections by social welfare organizations. On the surface, its aim is to advocate problems rather than political activities. For example, Antitax Gross Club is a social welfare organization. So it is clear that the intersection of the Koch brothers prosperous Americans and Carllobe is the GPS

In a recent article by the New York Times magazine "Federation of citizens changed the level of politics", the journal's top political journalist Matt Bell tried to prove that the decision of the Federal Council v. FEC does not change much. Political donation in the United States Below, his argument is block format. As a matter of political strategy, this is a useful story that can appeal to the Liberal Party and independent voters, not necessarily enthusiastic about the government, but they are concerned about social inequality. what? From the moment of civic joint judgment. But if you try to understand what is going on with politics and money, the story accepted by the Citizen Federation is too simple. In a way this is completely wrong.

I do not agree with Bai. The impact of Citizens Unit is only incremental (Rick Hasen has good criticism for this article). But what I was most impressed was that the work of the people of Bai is not what he said about the citizen federation, but why our campaign fundraising system has changed in the past 10 years. In his conclusion, I found that there was little difference to me. Bai and I believe that the external political group basically finished the traditional party funding system. But, as Biy said, in the past decade, we said "Most of the funds for the presidential election campaign are spent by political entrepreneurs and strategists, and they can not answer any agencies I created the world.