On 12-1-25, the Washington Post penned an article about: "How does SpeechNow.org V FEC impacted the role of Super PACs in American elections", and on that date the Enlightened Prisoner responded thus:
In the dissenting opinion for Citizens United, we were reminded that our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis. So, influence of the elected Congressional or Executive Branch or even Judicial Branch members by corporations or contributors to super PACs is problematic. Because they may be managed or controlled by non-residents and their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. Does that give you cause to worry about the problem? It should because it's been laid out very clearly in news reports.
This whole matter of campaign funding should be designated a responsibility of Congress that need to construct the tools of law. The Supremes judge what's fair and contributes to candidates all being given a fair shake at expressions of their qualifications and competency, not that they use a monied platform to control public media for use in condemnation of opponents.