Citizen's United - What was of questionable legality before is clearly legal now.

[kpete]

After the Other Shoe Drops

But it is easier to understate the importance of the case. First, it has become apparent that corporations and trade associations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, now feel as though a cloud has been lifted on their election-related activities. What was of questionable legality before is clearly legal now. Full-blown corporate involvement in Federal elections likely awaits the striking down of rules prohibiting corporations from making contributions to independent expenditure committees, so that corporations will not risk losing their customers by identifying with one side or the other in a candidate election. They will hide behind groups with innocuous names like "Americans for a Strong America" and other such anodyne labels.

...............

The rules continue to be in flux, and the real test will come in 2012. Remember that President Obama raised $785 million of mostly disclosed money under the old rules. What will the future look like? I don’t expect it to be pretty.

much more:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/contd/2010/10/12/after-the-other-shoe-drops/

[Mnemosyne]

1. KnR... n/t

[Tsiyu]

2. But according to Scalia

this was what the Founding Fathers intended - originalism and all that.

They didn't intend to form a Democratic Republic, they were REALLY shooting for oligarchy.

Just ask Antonin the Hun.

[Winterblues]

3. I believe it was all about a movie/documentary about Hillary Clinton.

They were not allowed to air the movie because it was considered a campaign contribution. The Extreme Court ruled it wasn't anything other than Free Speech and because no money was actually contributed to any campaign it was legal...Any body whether Corporation or individual can spend their own money on pointed ads if they do it themselves and not give the money to a campaign to spend how they want...

[FirstTimeVoterAt37]

4. Does anyone know...

What exactly was legalized, as in what would the charges be for accepting these kind of contributions before the ruling?

Because honestly, someone says "Citizens United" and I think "Legalized Bribery". And last time I checked not too many people are fond of bribery, unless they've been bribed.