Last week, the Guardian published a hefty expose on Scott Walker and the Wisconsin GOP that shatters the premise of Citizens United. They also posted the 10k leaked files on the net for anyone to look into. Said leaked documents were ordered by Wisconsin High court to be destroyed, so there's potential prosecution for "bringing the leaker to justice". What isn't illegal is how two judges who received campaign money from the Wisconsin Club for Growth refused to recuse themselves despite clear links and conflicts of interests. One underpinning of Citizens United was that receiving that money does not implicitly give "rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption", so that sounds consistent. The rulings from the courts down are a bit tortured about what "coordination" is is, and only reflects today's twisted rules and half rules for shedding light on campaign finance. The op/ed below is as tl;dr as one will get without digging too deep into the depressing realm known as Dark Money. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...-is-proof-that-campaign-finance-law-is-broken <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e4tHW9_bb08" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
With a split vote, in guessing it'll depend on whether Hillary is nominated. She has promised an end to citizens united both judicially and with a symbolic constitutional amendment. I haven't really dug into what garland would do or if garland even matters, as the race has been too nuts to consider that far. This is an overriding voting issue for me, but there are other emotionally pitched topics taking up the people's mindshare, atm. I don't think she'll bring up walker, as the leaks are a bit of poisoned fruit and she also has her own dark money web out of political necessity.