EE-Bota - The key problem with the citizen united decision is that it allows anonymous contributions.
The Supreme Court decision last month allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on behalf of political candidates left a loophole that campaign finance lawyers say could allow companies to pay for extensive political advertising while avoiding the disclosure requirements the court appeared to leave intact.
Enlarge This Image
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York proposes requiring nonprofit groups to identify donors for political advertising.
Experts say the ruling, along with a pair of earlier Supreme Court cases, makes it possible for corporations and unions to donate anonymously to nonprofit civic leagues and trade associations. The groups can then use the money to finance the types of political advertisements that were at the heart of last month痴 ruling, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/us/28donate.html?pagewanted=all
------------------------
It is not good for our democracy when an election can be influenced by $100s of millions and the source is not disclosed. Why would they want to hide from public scrutiny?
Freedom of speech but we don't know who is speaking. (I could add the conspiracy theory here):confused2:
Loren