Posted on January 3, 2014 (July 16, 2021) Democracy Amendments Share: FSFP’s John Bonifaz and Ryan O’ Donnell have written a new op-ed, Citizens United: States’ responses show election reform is needed that has been featured in the San Jose Mecury News. It reads, In the aftermath of Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that swept away longstanding precedent barring corporate money in our elections, states are still scrambling to adjust. But they are choosing very different paths. America rings in the New Year having seen nine states approve increases to existing campaign contribution limits during 2013. In fact, Michigan fully doubled its limits, and there was a serious effort to do the same in Wisconsin. So what’s the motivation behind these increases, despite the perennial desire of incumbents to beef up their bank accounts? Perhaps some hope that allowing candidates to raise more money might give candidates the resources to fight back at a time when vast quantities of hard-to-track independent expenditures are creeping into our politics. This would be a dubious strategy, given the magnitude of independent spending since the Citizens United ruling. Look at North Carolina’s current Senate race, where outside groups already have spent more than $8 million, making it one of the most expensive races in the country even before 2014 and the midterm elections arrived. Read the full version here.