You are so off track it is frightening. First off the term " Campaign Finance Reform" is so loaded that it means different things to different people. Usually, shut down people they don't like. Far too many see Citizen United as an affront because they don't understand how bad it would be for everyone if the ruling had been the other way and they don't understand the 1st Amendment.
In the US, two political parties control nearly all activity down to the county and city level. If you are in politics already you pretty much have to have permission to seek higher offices. If you are not you have to get past both parties even the one you wish to be part of. There is a reason why at the Congressional level reelection is almost a sure thing with most people losing their seat from retirement!
So lets look at the national level, where CU and CFR bells are rung the most. Incumbent politicians have unlimited access to the media and to a point even use of the postal service. That is one hell of an advantage to an outsider to surmount. Then thrown in all the PACs they have friends and family in, all of which are protected by wonderfully named laws to protect the integrity of elections but really do only two things, protect incumbents and provide a legal means to make their friends and families rich.
So lets drop back to CU and the 1A. The 1A says nothing about whose speech rights may not be infringed, it says speech may not be infringed. The CU ruling made it clear that it wasn't some fictional body having freedom of speech, it was the right of the people in any organizational form they choose will always have the right to free speech wherever they go.
That is why you must resist all attempts to reform campaign financing. The established parties already have it all wrapped up and are merely feeding you nice market tested lies to prevent anyone from breaking their duopoly.
Open the door to silencing one voluntary grouping of the public from entering politics by any means and you allow for any future grouping which is a threat to the established parties to be blocked as well.
Sorry I've tried to reread your comment several times but I don't understand the point you're making.
Why should people be okay with unlimited expenditures by corporations and special interest groups?
Having your government's influence be heavily skewed towards companies or even any non inclusive group of individuals seems like a huge problem. I understand that there is a balance to be struck but the current one seems way off to me.
> Then thrown in all the PACs they have friends and family in, all of which are protected by wonderfully named laws to protect the integrity of elections but really do only two things, protect incumbents and provide a legal means to make their friends and families rich.
Isn't the ability of PACs to hand out so much money a consequence of Citizens United?
In the US, two political parties control nearly all activity down to the county and city level. If you are in politics already you pretty much have to have permission to seek higher offices. If you are not you have to get past both parties even the one you wish to be part of. There is a reason why at the Congressional level reelection is almost a sure thing with most people losing their seat from retirement!
So lets look at the national level, where CU and CFR bells are rung the most. Incumbent politicians have unlimited access to the media and to a point even use of the postal service. That is one hell of an advantage to an outsider to surmount. Then thrown in all the PACs they have friends and family in, all of which are protected by wonderfully named laws to protect the integrity of elections but really do only two things, protect incumbents and provide a legal means to make their friends and families rich.
So lets drop back to CU and the 1A. The 1A says nothing about whose speech rights may not be infringed, it says speech may not be infringed. The CU ruling made it clear that it wasn't some fictional body having freedom of speech, it was the right of the people in any organizational form they choose will always have the right to free speech wherever they go.
That is why you must resist all attempts to reform campaign financing. The established parties already have it all wrapped up and are merely feeding you nice market tested lies to prevent anyone from breaking their duopoly.
Open the door to silencing one voluntary grouping of the public from entering politics by any means and you allow for any future grouping which is a threat to the established parties to be blocked as well.