SaroDarksbane

The Citizens United case was about a non-profit organization that wanted to air an advertisement for a film they made that was critical of a politician, and was told by the government that is was illegal for them to do so.

• By overturning this decision, aren't you advocating that the government have the legal right to censor political speech?
  
• The eventual supreme court decision was that censoring political speech (especially during an election) was against the first amendment. Why do you disagree with that opinion?
  
• Are you worried that allowing government censorship of political speech could ever backfire against you or the causes you support, should the reins of power be handed to politicians who disagree with you?
  
• For any political opinion you hold, how much money would a politician of the opposite opinion have to spend on advertisements to cause you to vote against your opinion at the polls?
  

EDIT: Bonus questions:

• Do you believe people should be able to spend their own, personal money on political activism?
• If so, won't limiting the ability of people to pool their money for political purposes create a system where only people with large personal fortunes can be heard?

Does the public have an opinion, absent the individual opinions of the private citizens?

We have those laws too. This was not about money donated to a campaign, but money spent on advertising a movie critical of a politician.

I specifically did not name the politician in question to avoid that perception. I'm not sure how I could have worded it more neutrally than I did.