Super PACs are not “campaign funding” by law they arent allowed to have any contact with the campaigns.
Also campaign funding is not unlimited free speech as there are donation limits. Super PACSs however are not campaigns and are free speech and which allow unlimited donations
This brings us the the problem. I dont have a problem with Super PACs in the presidential race because it is a national race and the only way for people in firmly red or blue states to have input is through these PACs.
However these massive PACs that generate billions in donations can massively change a small intrastate race. We find in necessary to limit free speech when it is physically malicious like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Should we not protect an integral pillar of our society the states rights to govern themselves from that same type of malicious intent?
actually if you read the majority opinion, they tell you why they couldnt give a more narrow decision
Thus, this case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment ’s meaning and purpose
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
I dont disagree with the ruling but I think it does leave the door open to less stringent electioneering regulation