The Trump administration is making a big deal about its plan to roll back the Citizens United ruling that opened the door to unlimited spending by corporations, unions and other special interests.
But what happens if the money is spent to help a specific nonprofit?
A group that can’t legally spend its own money to support a candidate may not get to keep it.
This is the first case of such a situation since Citizens United was struck down in 2010.
And it raises important questions about the limits of the First Amendment and the power of special interest groups to influence elections.
But the stakes are much higher than just the Supreme Court.
The Citizens United case has unleashed a tsunami of new special interest money in American politics.
The biggest new source of spending is the so-called super PAC, or political action committee.
They spend tens of millions of dollars to help candidates and other candidates.
The super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts.
They have to disclose their donors and disclose who their donors are, and the rules governing that disclosure are complicated and are ripe for abuse.
But unlike in elections, in this case the rules for disclosing super PACs are so clear that anyone with a smartphone can easily find out who’s giving to them.
The problem is that the rules don’t require super PACs to disclose the names of the donors, or for donors to be publicly identified, such as by their name.
That can make it very difficult for Americans to know who is funding groups that support candidates or who is spending money to sway an election.
The Supreme Court’s decision, Citizens United, established a precedent that allowed corporations, trade associations and other entities that are legally exempt from disclosure to spend unlimited sums of money supporting candidates.
Citizens United did not overturn Citizens United.
But it set the stage for this new wave.
The next day, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a landmark decision, In re Citizens United Inc., which held that corporations and other “special interest groups” may spend unlimited funds on elections.
This was the first time a Supreme Court ruling had held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect unlimited spending.
As a result, Citizens USA, the group that had spent hundreds of millions to defeat President Barack Obama, was able to spend tens $500 million to elect a Republican, who was endorsed by the Super PAC that had backed him.
This new money gave the Super PACs a powerful new tool.
They could spend unlimited money to elect candidates who support the interests of the billionaires and the special interests that they represent.
The Koch brothers, for example, spent $600 million to defeat the Affordable Care Act, which had passed with overwhelming support in the House.
The Super PAC supporting the Koch brothers had donated more than $1 million to Citizens USA.
A Supreme Court majority ruled in Citizens United that corporations can spend unlimited resources supporting candidates who have a “substantial connection” to them or their families.
That meant that Citizens USA was able, through Super PAC money, to put millions of other Americans’ lives at risk.
A week after Citizens United passed, another super PAC called Americans United for Life spent millions to elect President Barack Obamas successor.
Americans United spent $1.7 million on ads against then-Vice President Joe Biden and his running mate, Tim Kaine.
A day later, the SuperPAC supporting Vice President Joe Alsop was able spend another $500,000 on ads supporting Republican Scott Brown.
All of this was unprecedented.
It was an unprecedented act of unlimited corporate money supporting the election of a president and his Vice President.
It is unprecedented for a group of billionaires to spend $500 billion to defeat a President and his nominee.
The new Citizens United is not the only new super PAC.
There are also other new entities that can spend millions to support candidates.
These are called “social welfare” super PACs.
The word “social” doesn’t necessarily mean “social.”
Instead, these groups can spend money to “support candidates or cause.”
They can support candidates who share their values, but they can also be used to “influence elections.”
For example, in 2016, the American Action Network (AAN) spent $4 million on advertising attacking Senator Rand Paul.
In 2016, Crossroads GPS spent $8 million on advertisements attacking Senator Marco Rubio.
And the American Independent Action Network spent $12 million to attack Senator Scott Brown in 2012.
All three of these groups have spent millions of their own money on this election cycle to help elect a president.
But all three are not allowed to spend money on elections, because the Citizens, the Citizens Act and the Citizens for a Sound Economy all require it.
There’s nothing in the First, Fourteenth or the First Amendments that allows them to spend millions of people’s money on an election to try to influence an election or a political outcome.
And if they do, they can’t hide the money or claim that it was not for a political purpose.
AAN spent millions attacking Senator Elizabeth Warren, for instance, on the heels of a video showing her discussing the dangers of Wall Street in