But what if I, an individual, do not want one of the candidates to win. I should be able to do anything in my power to cause them to lose - write books, op-eds, documentaries, commercials etc. Additionally, what limits do we put on newspapers, famous people, unions, employees, news programs?
"In the final week of the 2012 election, MSNBC ran no negative stories about President Barack Obama and no positive stories about Republican nominee Mitt Romney, according to a study released Monday by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. "[1]
It seems that any restriction starts to favor certain groups. For instance, unions organizing volunteers
"The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president, Richard Trumka, said on Thursday that the nation’s labor unions would have 128,000 volunteers working on the “final four days” of the 2012 campaign, saying these volunteers would knock on 5.5 million doors and make 5.2 million phone calls." [2]
It should be noted, of course, that Citizens United itself was a hit-piece on Hilary Clinton. Is that really the kind of thing everyone wants to suppress?
But imagine this scenario: I'm running for office, and I opt in to the matching funds program. All well and good. But then, some extremely well-funded organization, which is totally separate from me and my campaign, spends lots of money glorifying me or denigrating my opponent.
You might argue that there's no corruption here, because I never had direct dealings with that organization, or the people funding it. But the potential for corruption is still there. Once these organizations exist, it will be clear to every candidate what he or she must do to win their favor. Politicians will have an incentive to advance these organizations' agendas, even if the politicians and the organizations never talk to each other. Further, it is quite possible (and indeed probable) that some politicians would cheat and deal directly with such organizations, even if doing so violated campaign finance laws.
