Democrats were up in arms after the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations could make independent expenditures, which are payments for ads expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates. The law still prohibits independent expenditure ads from being coordinated with candidate or party committees.
Cooler, more objective heads explained that Citizens United would not result in corporate takeovers of elections, and labor unions would likely take fuller advantage of the release from restrictions on independent expenditures. Recent primaries have proven the alarmist Democrats wrong, and the cooler heads right. The DISCLOSE Act, which targets free speech, doesn't deal with a loophole for incumbent politicians left by the McCain-Feingold ban on soft money. As reported in Politico, nine Democratic incumbents have already funneled $50 million to the DCCC this election cycle. Imagine this, but Ms. Pelosi ($23.5 million) and Mr. Van Hollen ($7.1 million) lead that process. So, as much as rabid Democrats protest the effects of the Citizens United decision, claiming it will open the floodgates to corporate money and it is worse than the Dred Scott decision, the Democratic leadership is still filtering corporate political action committee money - you know, BP, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, and so on - through the DCCC to help elect Democrats who would keep the current leadership in power.