Six years later, most people are still unaware of how the Citizens United decision actually protects their freedom.

Saying money is ruining politics makes as much sense as saying that there were too many special effects in the last Transformers movie.

Money and Politics are inseparable. It’s how media is purchased. Without the ability to purchase advertising, there is no way any message would get beyond a loud city council meeting, or a few angry facebook posts. Campaining costs money, even if it’s something as simple as putting gas in a campaign bus. Setting an arbitrary limit on the amount of money a candidate can spend, is ridiculous. It’s like regulating the volume control on their PA system.

Money doesn’t buy votes. If it did, Jeb! Bush would be the Republican nominee. He spent a ridiculous sum; enough to finance a Hollywood blockbuster, or buy half a dozen Lear jets. And yet, he couldn’t get into the double digits.

The big story about the 2016 election is how little the frontrunners are actually spending. Bernie Sanders has less than a $100 million dollar war chest, and Donald Trump, less than $25 million. Combined they’ve spent less than Jeb!. In a Presidential race that was projected to cost $2billion, it seems the media is just as incapable of predicting the cost of elections, as they are at melting icecaps.

So why is everyone so upset over Citizens United? Spending money on campaigns not only hires a lot of entry level film makers and marketing professionals, there is a good chance that the cash influx will keep a lot of newspapers solvent for another year or two.

A great case in favor of Citizens United was highlighted in a recent poll by Rasmussin. It showed 76% of Americans think there is too much corporate influence in politics. But a similarly large percentage, 66%, think the media have too big an impact on the election as well.

Which means by allowing an election commission to regulate corporate influence, almost as many people would be in favor of allowing Media Corporations, to be regulated as well as money. (Donald Trump was recently cheered for threatening to attack the media, by eliminating their exemption from libel laws.)

A little known fact is, attorneys for the US government argued the First Amendment does not always protect corporate speech. It was argued that in some cases the press might also be regulated by the FEC. Which is why the proposed Citizens United Amendment needs a specific exemption for the Freedom of the Press. But it doesn’t guarantee the Freedom of Broadcasting, or the Freedom to Make Movies.

Because, what exactly is “the press”? Technically, it’s a medieval contraption consisting of a turnscrew that moves two plates closer together. When screwed tightly down, it squishes ink-laden type into a sheet of paper. Those who argue the right to bear arms was never intended to extend beyond muskets, will find it very difficult to extend the notion of “press” into video and the Internet.

The very case of Citizens United was based on a filmmaker, who wanted to get his motion picture distributed, and the government wouldn’t let him. How this tiny fact has escaped common knowledge is beyond me. It seems any Hollywood Liberal, who puts principle before party, should be lined up against a Citizens United Amendment.

Michael Moore, who openly wears his hypocrisy by being the world’s fattest Communist, wants to see Citizens United overturned. Of course, he also predicted that the money Mitt Romney had, would guarantee him the 2012 election; so it would appear that his grasp on reality is fading right along with the grasp of his own shoelaces. He feels his movies will always be free from censorship, because they’re “real films”.

The problem is you never know who is going to be put in charge. Are we really willing to base an essential freedom on a bureaucrat’s assessment of what is a “real film”?  It’s great to have your speech subject to critical approval, as long as the critics agree with you; but I guarantee there is a wide chasm between what Donald Trump and most Americans would consider a “real” picture.

We’ve already seen what he considered a good TV show.