You are misunderstanding what the Citizens United vs. FEC determined. Candidate contributions are still limited, even after CU. What's not limited is independent expenditures.

I can understand how the "up to an annual contribution limit" part of my comment could be confusing. I added that in an attempt to not be misleading / to circumvent spurious disagreement. I've moved it inside of parenthesis to de-emphasise it.

If you read my comment as a response to the parent, I believe it will make more sense.

---

CU opened the floodgates of anonymous, unlimited political contributions to "independent", but not really independent, organizations which can campaign on behalf of candidates.

The goal was/is to replace our democratic republic with an oligarchy. And we're now in the end game.

> which can campaign on behalf of candidates.

Wrong, if the candidates are directing or otherwise leading ostensibly-independent donations this is illegal. Independent donations are exactly that: independent of a candidate's campaign. If they're carried out on behalf of a candidate, they're not independent donations.

You can put up billboards saying, "X candidate's record is the best on climate change, tax policy, etc.". Your spending in this manner is not subject to limits. If the candidate calls you up and says "It'd be really good if you put up billboards saying X, Y, and Z" then that's breaking election laws.

Citizens United is not even remotely close to replacing our republic with an oligarchy. You can't buy elections, no matter how much people try to say so. Clintion received about twice as many donations as Trump in 2016, but still lost the election.

It all assumes the candidate is the queen bee. They are now the worker bee. The superpac sets the rules, the candidate follow to get elected. That is the example in thw article, well actually more meta: it was a flex by crypto to show them they are a new mafia. They get many for the price of one.