So. Let's say (as I think will happen) Obama wins. What will it tell us about Citizens United?

[NRaleighLiberal]

I had this chat with a friend today, and he reminded me that CU is perhaps even more about local - so the Obama coat tail effect/possible (hoping for a) wave election will be interesting to watch - is the local scene where the endless CU enabled hate money will have its impact?

So let's say that Obama wins and we do well in the house and senate and locally - I think this would provide some hope that perhaps a tide is turning, and there was such visible, hateful overreach that we would be seeing a back lash.

Summary - CU is vile, should be overturned - but when (if, I know) we do well in this election, it will send a very strong, positive statement that money may not be as powerful as it thinks it is.

One can only hope...but I find this an interesting angle to ponder.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Andy823]

1. I agree.

It will show that the people of this country are not as dumb as republicans think they are, and that they are tired of the rich doing "better" while they do worse when it comes to income equality.

[northoftheborder]

2. Impossible for me to say....we've never seen this enormous deluge of money before...

[NCTraveler]

3. I think that both major political parties don't mind CU.

Each party has a use for it. Has Harry Reid put forth legislation to change it?

[ecstatic]

4. Money may not matter in the case of a severely unlikable candidate, like Rmoney

We need to work to get CU overturned immediately before someone like Rubio uses it to his advantage.

[librechik]

5. that we were able to push it back for now--but eventually, they will devour us.

There is too much money at stake for them to leave us alone. We need a new sheriff who will actually round up the criminals instead of leaving them in charge of the bank. Dunno when that will ever happen. Too much money at stake for too many very powerful people.

[nebenaube]

8. ding, ding!

This comment is the winner. If corporations are people then we need to execute a few of them.

[randome]

6. Obama's re-election will tell us that money is not always the winning hand.

The Democrats will have been greatly outspent yet Republicans will lose the election.

I'm not sure if Citizens United can be over-turned but disclosure laws are badly needed.

[Nye Bevan]

7. That you can have a healthy, democratic election process even when lots of money is being spent.

That the Koch Brothers, despite their billions of dollars, cannot simply buy an election.

That people are not swayed by political commercials as easily as some DUers seem to think.

That we don't need a Constitutional Amendment that would allow Congress to ban books, videos, and political websites, as well as political TV commercials, in the run-up to an election, in order for the Democrat to win.

[nebenaube]

9. You obviously

have not followed what went down in Wisconsin and everywhere else that ALEC has infiltrated.

[Whisp]

10. just like Obama has to be 10x as smart and work 10x as hard

because he is not a rich old white man

the democratic party will forever have to work 10x harder to offset CU.

I can't see CU being a good thing in any way at all ever.

[Panasonic]

11. When the Republican billionaires file for bankruptcy after losing tremendously

I will cheer because it will prove that Citizens United is a massive failure and needs to be repealed and Supreme Court justices resignations for allowing such law to exist.

And the organizations that supported CU will be bankrupt, broke, and reputations ruined because they dared to use an illegal method of fundraising to try to quiet a very popular president.

Republicans will go down the drain and ending the party's rule forever. Silenced.

[LiberalAndProud]

12. Doesn't it serve to illustrate the outer limits of political spending?

Romney is a thoroughly unattractive candidate. Even his own most partisan party members will be holding their noses as they pull the lever. I think 'Free Speech Spending' had a much greater impact on the Republican primaries this election season, as more likeable candidates (Huntsman, for example) never got a fair hearing. (There is one thing I agree with Huntsman on, at least -- PAC spending is evil.)

If this race is close, it will be due to 'Free Speech Spending', not because Romney is anywhere near the caliber of the man who currently holds the office. Much data is being gathered in this first post-CUD election. I expect that the education is as valuable as a win. The moneymen will have a greater understanding of how to buy elections following this test run, and will use the information as a weapon against the greater populace in future.

I shall now remove my hat.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

13. Obama is a special candidate

He has a strong charisma and likeability that can survive a full court press from CU money.

A wonk candidate, like Al Gore or John Kerry, would likely not survive that.

The election has come down to chucking money into battleground states anyhow.

[sadbear]

14. This is Citizen's United first go round

I'm not surprised the PACs and SuperPACs aren't getting it exactly right this time. But if it's allowed to stay on the books, they'll figure out how to use Citizens United a lot more effectively in the future.

[reformist2]

15. It will only prove that you can't make an Edsel a hit, no matter how big your ad budget is.

If the GOP candidate were any better, it wouldn't be clear to me at all that the Dems would be winning.

Citizens United needs to be overturned, or nullified with a constitutional amendment.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. If you nominate a can of cream corn, all the money in the world isn't going to get your can elected.

That being said, it has been proven again and again, if you have two electable candidates the one with the most money almost always wins.

[Nye Bevan]

19. Like Carly Fiorina? (nt)

[Hutzpa]

17. Citizens United decision is not much about the general election

imo it is how the decision affects down table elections, those running for Congress and local legislation.
That's what makes it more damning.

[Bake]

18. One of two things will happen next time ...

1. The rich Thug donors will decide it wasn't worth it and close the checkbooks.

OR

2. The rich Thug donors will decide they didin't give ENOUGH this time, and double down, becuase just a little bit more would have bought the election.

I'm guessing it's number 2.

Bake

[Nye Bevan]

20. I'm not convinced that doubling the number of political TV ads someone is exposed to

is going to change their decision on who to vote for.

I guess I'm more willing than most DUers to credit voters with some intelligence.

[HopeHoops]

21. They need to revise it to just GIVE the elections to rich white men - screw voting.

[Javaman]

22. The repukes will use Obama's win as a way to say...

that CU made no difference.

However behind the scenes the repukes will finally understand that they have to run something other than an empty shirt for president.

[stevenleser]

23. It means it isnt enough to have ability, you have to be likeable enough to raise LOTS of money

I think our 2004 (Kerry), 2000 (Gore), 1988 (Dukakis) and 1976 (Carter) candidates do worse under CU. Sure, Clinton and Obama benefit, but it means that it isn't enough to be smart and have ability you have extremely high charisma and personal appeal so you can raise money and enable groups working on your behalf to raise money.

That was almost true to some extent but it is much worse now.

[jwirr]

24. I have for along time thought that most of the citizens of the USA have blamed the banksters, Wall

Street and the 1% for the mess we are in. It has not escaped the attention of our side that Citizen's United ARE these groups. They are a real liability to the gop.

[Major Nikon]

25. At some point, the influx of money has to see diminishing returns

At least as far as the presidential election goes, the battleground states are already flooded with campaign advertisements from both sides. I believe we are reaching the point at which both sides are going to have to spend a lot more money to see ever smaller gains, which is effectively going to level the playing field when it comes to campaign donations.

I don't think you can say the same thing about legislative elections, so money is going to continue to play a big role in those.