 no-repeat 0 0; } @media only screen and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (min--moz-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (-o-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2 / 1), only screen and (min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), only screen and (min-resolution: 192dpi), only screen and (min-resolution: 2dppx) { .ig-b-48 { background-image: url(//badges.instagram.com/static/images/ig-badge-sprite-48@2x.png); background-size: 60px 178px; } }</style> <a href=){kind=icon}
Is Citizens United really such a big deal after all? The answer is still yes.
Everyone loves a good counter-intuitive story, but Washington loves one sort in particular: the kind that assures us all that something we’ve been led to believe was a worrisome problem is, in fact, not all that big a deal after all, thus allowing us to return to watching “Veep” or “The Newsroom.” Yesterday’s New York Times Magazine offered a classic of this form, a Matt Bai piece arguing that the Citizens Unitedruling of 2010 is not nearly as responsible for the boom in campaign spending by outside groups as those whiny goo-goo types make it out to be…
Alec MacGillis — “Citizens United? Don’t Worry Your Pretty Heads About It”
8 notes
-
pensamiento-serpentino likes this
-
merriweathers likes this
-
animalinmymind likes this
-
questionall reblogged this from thenewrepublic
-
questionall likes this
-
naturaldissidence likes this
-
thenewrepublic posted this
