In a political environment where gerrymandered incumbency trumps everything except money, and where elected officials spend most of their waking hours raising funds for the next election, it’s safe to assume that politicians are aware of some basic reality that seems to have escaped both Mother Jones, which declared the Citizens United ruling a “big fizzle,” and Jeff Jacoby (“Why the fuss on Citizens United?” Op-ed, Feb. 27).
True, 21 of Karl Rove’s candidates lost. The other way to look at it is that nine won. Isn’t it reasonable to wonder how those nine elected officials might behave in office in exchange for an unlimited flow of publicly anonymous campaign cash? We may not know who the donors are, but Rove does, and we can be sure that those nine do, too.
Corporate entities are legal fictions created in part to shield their owners or members from the consequences of their actions. As long as the Supreme Court supports the bizarre notions that these things are people and that money and speech are the same thing, our system of representative democracy has a serious problem.