Yes, that's what I would think so too. I believe the stumbling block has more to do with corporations' status as "people" than actual campaign contributions. In a nutshell, SC ruled that limiting campaign contributions by corporations restricted the corps free speech rights.
Personally I don't think corporations should have the same rights as people.
Ways around this would be to limit all campaign contributions to some small number; prohibit PACs from making contributions essentially declaring PACs are *not* people even though corporations are; making all campaign funding a function of government spending and not contributions.
But the SC is on the side of corps, both Dems and GQP, to my eternal puzzlement.
Wouldn't it be easier to work on overturning Citizens United?
Yes, that's what I would think so too. I believe the stumbling block has more to do with corporations' status as "people" than actual campaign contributions. In a nutshell, SC ruled that limiting campaign contributions by corporations restricted the corps free speech rights.
Personally I don't think corporations should have the same rights as people.
Ways around this would be to limit all campaign contributions to some small number; prohibit PACs from making contributions essentially declaring PACs are *not* people even though corporations are; making all campaign funding a function of government spending and not contributions.
But the SC is on the side of corps, both Dems and GQP, to my eternal puzzlement.