"There is every reason to expect that there will be much more direct corporate electoral funding in the wake of Citizens United. Funneled without limit through trade associations and shadowy front groups able to run vicious attack ads without identifying their corporate patrons, such lucre will deter good candidates from running for office because they won't want to have anything to do with such dirty politics."

WSJ op-ed piece criticizing Citzens United Supreme Court decision.

I ask everyone out here across the political spectrum, does anyone think the situation described above does not exist already?

Truth!

Politics these days is nothing but venom/poison...

I think it does exist already, but I think that more companies will be willing to do it now- even if it's just to match the competition.

I can even see some kind of consulting business pop up that connects corporations with political admakers and structures the money so the source becomes less and less evident. Money laundering for Wall Street.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the above already exists.

It does. Think Swift Boaters. I would like all of this to come from out of the closet.

Should we prepare the rainbow flags?

Sorry, I don't get it.

out of the closet = gay = rainbow flags.

Bad joke, sorry.

Got it. Not bad, I am just slow today.

Didn't that group have to disclose their donors?

For the love of money
People would lie to their mother
For the love of money
People would steal from their own brother
For the love of money
People can't even walk the streets
They never know who in the world they're gonna meet
For that mean
Mean green

I believe it led to a PAC that was set up just for that donation. Not sure if we ever found out who funded the PAC. At any rate, since PAC's already participate in this sort of speech, and the PACs can be funded by companies/unions, the Supreme Court ruling isn't the end of the world that the Dems are making it out to be.

In fact, this ruling could make things more transparent.