Why Citizens United Has Nothing to Do with What Ails American Politics | Ilya Shapiro | Cato Institute: Commentary

Why Citizens United Has Nothing to Do with What Ails American Politics | Ilya Shapiro | Cato Institute: Commentary: "President Obama’s famous statement that the decision “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections.”"

"the overturned precedent was a 1990 case"

"there’s no significant change in corporate spending this cycle"

"the rights of foreigners—corporate or otherwise—is another issue about which Citizens United said nothing"

"[all these “evil” companies] spend little money on political advertising, partly because it’s more effective to lobby, but mostly because they wouldn’t want to alienate half of their customers."

"Political money is like water: It’ll flow somewhere because what government does matters and people want to speak about their concerns. To the extent that “money in politics” is a problem, the solution is to reduce the political scope that the money can influence. Shrink government, and you’ll shrink the amount people spend trying to get a piece of the pie."

"By rewriting the Watergate-era Federal Election Campaign Act to remove spending limits but not contribution caps, Buckley upset Congress’s balanced reform. That’s why politicians spend all their time fundraising. Moreover, the regulations have pushed money away from candidates and toward advocacy groups—undermining the worthy goal of government accountability."

"Get rid of limits on individual contributions and then require disclosures for those who donate amounts big enough for the interest in preventing corruption to outweigh the potential for harassment. Then the big boys will have to put their reputations on the line, but not the average person. Let voters weigh what a donation’s source means to them, rather than allowing politicians to write rules benefiting themselves."