DerekCressman

I guess a more detailed answer would be to agree with Justice Stevens when he wrote that money is property, it is not speech. More profoundly, we need to remember that we enhance political dialogue and debate by limiting actual speech all the time. We limit how much time a citizen can speak at a city council meeting, or a member of Congress can speak on the floor of the House. We limit the number of pages a lawyer can submit to the Supreme Court -- these limits ensure that the listener has time to consider opposing points of view and not be overwhelmed by just one (wealthy) viewpoint

There is a free bonus chapter to the book (available here http://www.derekcressman.com/bonus_chapters ) that documents both the long history of money influence politics but also the long history of congress and state legislatures passing laws to address that. Many of these laws worked until they were gutted by the Supreme Court, which began in 1976 with Buckley v. Valeo -- long before the Citizens Untied ruling. So, you're correct that we need to do much more than simply overturn the Citizens United ruling and the constitutional amendments that I detail in the book would do that.

Good for you. There is a list of organizations working on this in the appendix, which is a place to start. It's tough to find a paying job in the field of getting money out of politics -- turns out a lot of the funders that fund political work like things the way they are. Especially as a new attorney, you may have a tough time finding a litigation job in the field -- keep trying. In the meantime, volunteer with various organizations, push your local elected officials to take action, and keep learning about the issue.

I think it's terrific that he has put overturning Citizens United at the center of his campaign along with economic inequality. He's doing his part. But, I do think this is not something that any president is going to solve for us -- we need to roll up our sleeves as citizens and get to work.

I was surprised to learn that the authority of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional wasn't in the original constitution, nor were the Framers of our Constitution united in thinking this was a good idea.