Money isn't speech, nor are corporations people. Sorry.

It has nothing to do with causes I do, or do not agree with, and everything to do with a healthy democracy.

Let's just say ones bank account is no measure of character, nor qualification to speak above others in the democracy.

A similar dynamic can be seen with land owners, who also consistently seek some advantage over their peers.

Acres do not vote, nor do dollars.

Additionally, it has nothing to do with stopping advocacy of any kind. Those of significant means have plenty of ways to get the word out. Non issue.

Bribery is another matter altogether. That is precisely what an amendment would be about.

Thomas Paine derived the justification for self governance, and the basis for its authority in his books. In particular, "Rights of Man", and "Age of Reason" contain most of this in easy to understand form.

A core idea is we agree to governance so we may better exercise our liberty. A lack of governance actually diminishes that for large numbers of people.

The government must then serve us if it's authority is just and true.

Allowing for money as speech in politics renders the authority of the government corrupt, unjust and untrue. In a real sense, it only serves some of us, when the intent is for it to serve all of us.

That we allow anonymous dollars is also troubling. The First Amendment does not include a shield. At the very least we should require complete and full disclosure of all funds.

Some of us want to advocate for causes an awful lot of the rest of us think very poorly of. And that is fine, but allowing powerful people to speak with impunity is as corrupt as the bribery associated with said speech.

What the two do is break the basic intent and trust necessary for the people to abide by and respect the government. And government is necessary, despite some who claim otherwise.

Further, it is not possible to conduct a meaningful debate, which can form the basis for cause agreement or disagreement in an environment where money so obviously trumps votes as consistently as it does in the US at present.

Finally, the idea that some of us deserve to call the shots, because money, for the rest of us is old world governance. You can lump that in with ideas like divine right, or nobility, etc...

A claim that God says one should be king, or that winning the birth lottery means the same is as silly as the idea of a wealthy person being somehow entitled in like kind.

The telling bit in all this is the strong and consistent pushback on disclosure.

Any cause really worth persist does not require anonymonity. Sure, there will be naysayers, but the overall open discourse will bring merits to light, as intended.

Many who do not want disclosure have also been linked to some pretty damn ugly policy advocacy too. That's a generalization, of course, but it's also indicative of why disclosure at a minimum is required to make any real sense out of the mess we have in money and politics today.

Honestly, I do not believe you understand how and why the First Amendment works, nor why it exists.

Full disclosure may actually prove good enough too. If we are to continue with the idea of money as speech and corporations as people, then we also need to insure the basic dynamics of those are true to the intent of the First Amendment.

Vile people can hide behind their corporate proxy and act with anonymous dollars to ends that are not easily demonstrated to be worthy. At present they can avoid judgement from their fellow citizens as well as many liabilities. That is a step too far.

Disclosure would bring that out, and it may be enough to be workable. I'm completely open to that.

I am absolutely not open to the idea of such powerful actors able to do so with relative impunity. Meaningful checks and balances are a core idea we all live by, and that is by design and intent to form a more just governance than our founders saw in the past.

Citizens United is nothing more than a call to return to the times of fiefdoms, kings, lords, nobility... and many other unAmerica ideas of just and true governance.