Citizens United Ruling

Citizens United does not allow unlimited (or any) payments to a campaign. Citizens United was about the rights of a corporation to spend money publishing its own speech. Political speech is expressly protected by the first amendment, and the court decided that restraint of it was unconstitutional: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf> Beca

Look up the citizens united case. The supreme court essentially said that money = speech, and therefore, spending money to influence political campaigns and elections is protected by the first amendment.

The wikipedia summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) is pretty good. The government can't prohibit anyone (people, corporations, unions, etc) from making political speech, so long as it's not directed by the candidate. So I can't donate a billion dollars to a candidate's campaign, but I can run a billion dollars of ads supporting hi

This is very much a speech issue.Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits) from speaking about a candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed "electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits.After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets

That's not quite correct, actually. Citizens United overturned a part of a law that prohibited corporations and unions from spending their money on "electioneering communications" (generally defined as communications advocating for or against a specific candidate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The decision is not about PACs or limitations on their ability to raise funds, though PACs certainly benefited from the ruling.

The parent commenter is referring to "Citizens United" ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The Citizens United decision doesn't allow corporations to donate unlimited or anonymized funds to campaigns. Citizens United wanted to release and promote an independent, short, anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film, and the decision was that this was protected free speech.

Citizens United was a Supreme Court decision that said money was free speech. The result is that it is perfectly legal to “bribe” U.S. politicians now.

Wasn’t citizens United about how much money can be donated too? So it’s relevant, no?

In the US, wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment? I thought Citizens United declared money to be free speech (paraphrasing) .