laws that existed prior to the case? 501(c)(3)'s have to disclose and there is endless information about who is giving what related to those entities. 501(c)(4)'s were never required to disclose prior to CU and the case did not change that. CU did open up the notion of entities like corporations and unions being able to donate to a (c)(4) - which has opened up more flood gates on how much money is spent overall by those entities on their "social issues". However, what did CU do to actually change the financial disclosure laws? How was it predicated on anything different than the disclosure laws that existed? As for (c)(4)'s who break the law improperly using foreign money - they were able to do that just as improperly before CU as after.

I'd also ask what is your definition of "globalist"? Do you think somebody who believes in "globalization" also supports foreign money and influence in U.S. elections?

It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach how much money is spent on elections and politics in this country. Disgusting, especially when you think about how that kind of money could be used in other ways. I'd love that to change in a big way, but that is a different issue.